ASSESSING METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY‘S APPROACH IN ANKARA SINCE THE MID-1990s

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

ÖZLEM YALÇINKAYA

IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN URBAN DESIGN IN CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING

FEBRUARY 2011 Approval of the thesis:

ASSESSING ANKARA METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY’S PUBLIC ART APPROACH IN ANKARA SINCE THE MID-1990s

submitted by ÖZLEM YALÇINKAYA in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Urban Design in City and Regional Planning Department, Middle East Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen ______Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Melih Ersoy ______Head of Department, City and Regional Planning

Assist. Prof. Dr. Z. Müge Akkar Ercan ______Supervisor, City and Regional Planning Dept., METU

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Baykan Günay ______City and Regional Planning Dept., METU

Assist. Prof. Dr. Z. Müge Akkar Ercan ______City and Regional Planning Dept., METU

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Adnan Barlas ______City and Regional Planning Dept., METU

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serap Kayasu ______City and Regional Planning Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. Fatma Cana Bilsel ______Architecture Dept., METU

Date: 10.02.2012

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name: Özlem Yalçınkaya

Signature:

iii

ABSTRACT

ASSESSING ANKARA METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY‘S PUBLIC ART APPROACH IN ANKARA SINCE THE MID-1990s

YALÇINKAYA, Özlem

M.S., Department of City and Regional Planning in Urban Design

Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Z. Müge Akkar Ercan

February 2011, 167 Pages

Public spaces play essential roles in urban life for the city, the public and individuals, by setting strong relations between urban space and social and cultural values. Public spaces and their essential components have multi-dimensional impacts on people. Public art, as a constituent of public space, includes a wide range of artworks, activities and outcomes, contributing to the significance of the places in a variety of ways. However, each culture, country and city, has diverse policies and outcomes of public art based on different perspectives. Focusing on the public art policies in Ankara over the last two decades, this thesis seeks to examine how far the recent policies have contributed to the city. By carrying out in-depth investigation on the public art work interventions and policies of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, the thesis assesses the multi-dimensional contributions of these policies and interventions. It seeks to discuss how far the public artwork policies of localities are crucial for creating genuine public spaces of cities.

Keywords: Public space, public art, urban design, Ankara

iv

ÖZ

ANKARA BÜYÜKġEHĠR BELEDĠYESĠNĠN 1990 ORTALARINDAN ĠTĠBAREN KAMUSAL SANAT ÇALIġMALARININ DEĞERLENDĠRĠLMESĠ

YALÇINKAYA, Özlem

Yüksek Lisans, ġehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, Kentsel Tasarım

Tez Yöneticisi: Assist. Prof. Dr. Z. Müge Akkar Ercan

ġubat 2011, 167 Sayfa

Kamusal alanlar, kentsel mekan ile toplumsal ve kültürel değerler arasında güçlü iliĢkiler kurarak, kentsel yaĢamda önemli roller üstlenirler. Kamusal mekanlar ve temel bileĢenlerinin insanlar üzerinde çok boyutlu etkileri vardır. Kamusal alanın önemli bir yapı taĢı olan kamusal sanat, kapsamında çok çeĢitli sanat çalıĢmaları ve etkinlikleri bulundurur. Böylece kamusal sanat, mekanın önemine değiĢik biçimlerde katkıda bulunur.

Her kültür, ülke ve kentin kamusal sanat politikaları, dolayısıyla bu politikaların sonuçları, birbirinden farklıdır. Bu çalıĢma, Ankara‘da son yirmi yıldır uygulanan kamusal sanat politikalarına odaklanarak, bu politikaların kente nasıl katkı sağladığını ve ne tür etkilerde bulunduğunu incelemektedir. Bu bağlamda, Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi‘nin kamusal sanat politika ve müdahalelerini derinlemesine inceleyerek, çok boyutlu etkilerini değerlendirmektedir. Bu tez, kentlerde anlamlı kamusal mekân yaratmada, Belediyelerin kamusal sanat politikalarının ne kadar önemli olduğunu tartıĢmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kamusal mekan, kamusal sanat, kentsel tasarım, Ankara

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank and express my sincere gratitude to Assist. Prof. Dr. Z. Müge Akkar Ercan, my supervisor, for her great support, patience, encouragement, and guidance throughout the preparation of this thesis. I also would like to thank the examining committee members, Prof. Dr. Baykan Günay, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Adnan Barlas, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serap Kayasu and Prof. Dr. Fatma Cana Bilsel for their valuable suggestions, guidance and comments.

I would like to thank to my parents, FatoĢ Yalçınkaya and Özcan Yalçınkaya and all my family members for their supports and infinite patience during every stages of thesis.I also owe special thanks to my friends for their supports during my thesis research.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iv

ÖZ ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiv

CHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Definition of the research problem ...... 1 1.2. Aims and objectives of the study ...... 4 1.3. Research Methodology ...... 5 1.4. Structure of the Thesis ...... 6 2. PUBLIC ART AND THE CITY ...... 8 2.1. What is ‗public art‘? ...... 8 2.2. Types of public artworks in public space ...... 12 2.3. Manifestations of public art in public sphere ...... 17 2.3.1.Appearance of public art in public space ...... 17 2.3.2.The characters of public artwork ...... 19 2.3.3.Permanence of public art ...... 20 2.3.4.Legal characteristics of public art ...... 22 2.4. Contributions of public art in public space ...... 26 2.4.1.Spatial Contributions of Public Art ...... 26 2.4.1.1.Contributions to the space ...... 27 2.4.1.2.Contributions to the publicness of public space ...... 30 2.4.1.3.Contributions to location ...... 31 2.4.1.4.Contributions to identity of a place ...... 33

vii

2.4.1.5.Contributions to quality of life ...... 33 2.4.2.Social Contributions of Public Art ...... 35 2.4.2.1.Contributions to the public sphere of cities ...... 36 2.4.2.2.Contributions to people‘s experience ...... 39 2.4.2.3.Contributions with collaboration ...... 41 2.4.2.4.Contributions to social change ...... 42 2.4.3.Political and Ideological Contribution of Public Art ...... 44 2.4.4.Economical Contributions of Public Art ...... 49 2.4.4.1.Contributions to profit-motivated market objectives ...... 50 2.4.4.2.Contributions to revitalising property market ...... 51 2.4.4.3.Contributions to consumption in new commercial, cultural and office developments ...... 52 2.4.4.4.Contributions to visitors and local spending ...... 53 2.4.4.5.Contributions to employment ...... 54 2.4.4.6.Contributions to city image and branding ...... 55 3. PUBLIC ART POLICY IN ANKARA ...... 57 3.1.Public Art Strategy from the Early-Republican Period to the 1990s ...... 58 3.1.1.Public Art and Constitution of the Republican Identity in Ankara ...... 59 3.1.2.Public Art and Constitution of the Urban Culture after the 1970s ...... 61 3.2.Public Art Strategy of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipalitybetween 1994 and 2011 ...... 62 3.2.1.The effect of moral values on the perspective of the AMM towards the public artworks in Ankara ...... 63 3.2.2.Approaches towards the Existing Public Artworks and Assets in Existing Public Spaces ...... 67 3.2.2.1.Hakimiyet-i Milliye (Ulus) Square and Zafer Monument ...... 71 3.2.2.2.Gençlik Parkı and the Sculptures in the park ...... 73 3.2.2.3.Ankara Train Station and Miras Sculpture ...... 79 3.2.2.4.Sıhhiye and the Monument of Hittite Sun Disk ...... 81 3.2.2.5. and the Monument of Marshall Atatürk ...... 85 3.2.2.6.Güvenpark and the Monument of Güvenlik ...... 88 3.2.3.Approaches on Creating New Public Artworks in New or Existing Public Spaces ...... 94 3.2.3.1.Ankara Metropolitan Municipality‘s public art preferences ...... 94 3.2.3.2.Public Art Approaches in new Parks ...... 100

viii

3.2.3.3. Approaches on creating new public artworks along the Main Boulevards and Arteries ...... 104 i.Interventions on the Central Spine; Atatürk Boulevard ...... 106 ii.Interventions on the South-Western Corridor ...... 113 iii.Interventions on Southern Corridor ...... 119 3.2.4.Approaches on Proposed and Unrealized Projects for Ankara City ...... 123 3.2.4.1.Metropolitan Municipality‘s Proposed Projects for Ankara ...... 123 i.Lightening Project for Ankara (2011) ...... 123 ii.Water, Music and Ligtening Entertainment Shows in Gençlik Parkı (2011) ...... 126 iii.Creating a ―historic‖ look for Kızılay byCladding the Buildings with Seljuk Architecture ...... 129 3.2.4.2.Metropolitan Municipality‘s Unrealized Projects for Ankara...... 130 4. CONCLUSION ...... 135 4.1.Findings of the Research ...... 135 4.1.The General Assessment on Contributions of Public Art Practices in Ankara through Discussion on the findings in relation to the theory ...... 142 4.2.Recommendations ...... 147 REFERENCES ...... 152

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.The Great Sphinx of Giza in Egypt and Julien Coloumn in Ankara as artefacts of the cities they exist ...... 13 Figure 2. The Sculptures of Ġnsan Hakları (‗Human Rights‘) and Madenci (‗Miner‘) that are designed by Metin Yurdanur in Ankara ...... 13 Figure 3.The Scott Monument in Edinbrough is an architectural artwork example ...... 14 Figure 4. ‗Yekpare‘ (monolithic) video mapping show in HaydarpaĢa Station and the lightening show of Sydney Opera House...... 14 Figure 5.The work of Doris Salcedo in called ―1600 Empty Chairs‖ that stands for a victim of mass violence in her home country Colombia...... 15 Figure 6.Andy Goldsworthy‘s snowballs exhibited in the streets and public spaces of London in June 2000, and the works are melted over a period of three to five days to reveal different materials he had packed into them...... 16 Figure 7. Earth art of Mud Maid (left) and the giant‘s head (right) in The Lost Gardens of Heligan the botanic garden in Cornwall, UK ...... 16 Figure 8. This unusual pieces of street furniture was designed by Gaudi in 1906 ...... 17 Figure 9.The Church of the Sagrada Familia and the ParcGüell in Barcelona designed by Gaudi ...... 18 Figure 10.Paris Métro station entrance designed by Hector Guimard in the art nouveau style ...... 20 Figure 11.Stencils of the famous unknown ...... 25 Figure 12.Unsanctioned public arts generally aims to access public with significant messages ...... 25 Figure 13. Cloud Gate, a public artwork designed by Anish Kapoor, is the centerpiece of the Millennium Park in Chicago, Illinois, United States...... 27 Figure 14. a-ape project, Liverpool...... 43 Figure 15. in East London ...... 48 Figure 16. Removal of Stalin‘s sculpture in Georgia in 2010, Saddam Huseyin‘s sculpture in Iraq in 2003 and Buddha statue before and after its destruction in 2001 ...... 48 Figure 17. Example from fish exhibition in Gordion and public piano recital in Cepa ...... 53 Figure 18. The crowd for the Cow Parade Austin in 2011 ...... 54 Figure 19. Eiffel Tower and Mannaken Piss Sculpture became a landmark and symbol of Paris and inspite the contrast in their size...... 56 Figure 20. The ―Periler Ülkesinde‖ sculpture before it was removed from Altınpark ...... 64 Figure 21. Ġnsanlık Anıtı is a significant example from Kars which was demolished in 2011...... 65 Figure 22. Su Perileri Sculpture when it was in Kızılay Square (top), in Hacettepe area 1950s (down-left) and in Tandoğan Square 1970s (down-right) ...... 66 Figure 23. The ceramic teapot of Kütahya Porselen in Tandoğan Square and the Su Perileri sculpture when it was kept in the Municipality‘s warehouse ...... 66 Figure 24. Su Perileri Sculpture at Cer Modern ...... 67 x

Figure 25. The spatial locations of the public spaces and the artworks they correlate ...... 70 Figure 26. Zafer Monument in 1930s and 2011 ...... 71 Figure 27.The bronze sculptures of the Monument of Zafer had been dyed with golden yellow colour in 2009 ...... 72 Figure 28. The renderings of Gençlik Parkı renovation project from the perspective of Ulus gate and Cumhuriyet Sculpture...... 73 Figure 29. Pictures of Roman women in the old postcards as a symbol of Ankara ...... 75 Figure 30.The new places of Roman Girl and Roman Boy Sculptures ...... 75 Figure 31. The old gate which is now used as watchman‘s hut and new Ulus gate of Gençlik Parkı ...... 76 Figure 32.The new monument of Gençlik Parkı which has created a gathering place for visitors ...... 77 Figure 33.The sculpture of Nazarbayev in Gençlik Parkı ...... 77 Figure 34.Gençlik Parkı‘s pool was a significant recreational element that served also opportunity for water sports ...... 78 Figure 35.The square of the train station during and after the renewal process ...... 80 Figure 36.The new location of Miras Sculpture with is surrounded by barriers and vehicles ...... 81 Figure 37.Hittite Monument, Eller Sculpture and Havuz Fıskiyesi in Sıhhiye region ...... 82 Figure 38. The Hittite emblem of Ankara before 1995, the emblem after 1995 and the new emblem in 2011, the smiling cat logo of Ankara in 2010 and the new logo in 2011...... 83 Figure 39.The view of Hittite Sun disk and park area before the constructions of bridges from old postcards ...... 84 Figure 40.Sıhhıye u-turn bridge, Hittite Sun Disk and Abdi Ġpekçi Park ...... 85 Figure 41. Zafer Square and Atarürk Boulevard in 1930s and after the construction of Zafer Bazaar in 1970s ...... 86 Figure 42.Monument of Marshall Atatürk in Zafer Square ...... 88 Figure 43.The existing situation of Zafer Bazaar with cars and advertisement billboards .. 88 Figure 44.Güvenpark (and Kızılay Park) along with Atatürk Boulevard in 1930s and 1940s ...... 89 Figure 45.Monument of Güven in Güvenpark ...... 90 Figure 46. The night view of Güvenpark and Kızılar Square after the renovation; the sculptures are not lightened but the pools are ...... 91 Figure 47. The visuality of water shows of the pools in day and night ...... 92 Figure 48. Ġftar tent in Güvenpark in Ramadan Period ...... 93 Figure 49. The giant installation with barriers in Güvenpark in 2010 ...... 93 Figure 50.Landscape motifs and decorations in Balgat crossroad, Kızılay crossroad and Altınpark ...... 95 Figure 51.The promotional logo of Ankara (with graphic of Agora cat) which is designed with landscape elements in different public spaces including; Dikmen Valley, EskiĢehir Road, Göksu Park ...... 95 Figure 52. The an-ki sculptures of Ankara which had abstract interpretations of Ankara goat ...... 97 Figure 53.Goat sculptures located in Sıhhiye multiplex car park area, Tandoğan and Dikmen...... 97

xi

Figure 54.The mascot of the first International Children‘s Sport Plays located in different public places of Ankara...... 98 Figure 55.Landscape decorations with hardscape elements and sculptures in Dikmen Valley ...... 102 Figure 56.The various sculptures that imitates rural life and goat sculptures in Dikmen Valley ...... 102 Figure 57.Sculptures in Göksupark ...... 103 Figure 58.The imitated travertines and the landscape writing of municipality in Dikmen Valley ...... 103 Figure 59.Mogan Lake, Göksu Parkı and Dikmen Valley ...... 104 Figure 60.The significant boulevards and corridors of Ankara ...... 106 Figure 61.The watch decoration in Kızılay Square on the refuge in front of a pedestrian pass...... 107 Figure 62.Pedestrian overpass and pools with water jets along Atatürk Boulevard ...... 108 Figure 63. The relief printing of various motifs like swan figures on the wall of Kuğulu Underpass and motifs that narrates the Anatolian stories in the walls of an underpass in Fatih Street ...... 109 Figure 64. The project view of Atatürk Monument ...... 111 Figure 65. The monument of Atatürk square ...... 111 Figure 66. View of the Monument from Atatürk Boulevard ...... 112 Figure 67.The motifs of the Agora cat, rabbit and goat on the walls of bridges along EskiĢehir Road and sitting benches under the underpasses...... 115 Figure 68.The view of the clock tower and the pool with glasswork together ...... 116 Figure 69.The general view and inner view of GökkuĢağı in EskiĢehir Road at night ...... 117 Figure 70.The night view of GökkuĢağı area from street...... 117 Figure 71.The location of Samanyolu in Konya Road ...... 120 Figure 72.The recreational area and sculptures in Samanyolu- BaĢkent Designer Outlet . 121 Figure 73.The Semazen sculpture on top of the elevator of the overpass in Mevlana Boulevard...... 122 Figure 74.The grand opening of the lightening show after the declaration of the results of the general elections ...... 125 Figure 75.The vision of Atakule after and before the lightening project ...... 126 Figure 76. ―Magnificent Dance of Water Together With Light and Music‖ in Güvenpark ...... 127 Figure 77.The visions of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (on top) and Ġ. Melih Gökçek on on the rising waters from water jets ...... 128 Figure 78. Building in kızılay and its visualisation after cladding ...... 130 Figure 79.Visualisation of cladding and lightening of the buildings along Atatürk Boulevard ...... 130 Figure 80.The illustrations of unrealized projects ...... 132 Figure 81.The 3D visualization of Hodja Urban Transformation Project ...... 134

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. The spatial contribution of public artworks ...... 34 Table 2.3. Social contributions of public art ...... 44 Table 2.3. Political and ideological contribution of public art ...... 49 Table 2.4. Economic contribution of public art ...... 56

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMM ...... Ankara Metropolitan Municipality

DVP ...... Dikmen Valley Project

NAEUTP ...... North Ankara Entrance Urban Transformation Project

TOKĠ ...... Toplu Konut Ġdaresi BaĢkanlığı (The Housing Development Administration of )

xiv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Definition of the research problem

Urban public spaces are of great importance for cities, societies and urban life. Public space regenerates societies through discourse, action and manifestation of individuals with the variety and diversity of elements and features that it presents. The significance of the place arises as a whole and in the fragments including elements creating public space‘s aesthetical, physical, functional and social feature. With their essential components, they play multi-dimensional roles and have broad impacts on cities and societies.

Public art constitutes one of these essential components of urban public spaces. It is an umbrella term that can be explained as any work of art, which is designed for and sited in a place, and which is accessible to the general public. Public art includes a wide range of artworks, activities and outcomes that can contribute to the significance of the public place in a variety of ways. It sets a strong relation with its audiences and the physical space (built environment and city) through its design, form, material and meaning. In this sense, public artwork is a crucial component of the public realm, i.e., an intellectual and physical element that affects individuals and the public. Furthermore, it creates or adds a meaning to the physical environment (public space and the city). Thus, public art contributes to cities and societies in various ways.

Public art is usually installed in public spaces with the authorization and collaboration of the government that administers the space for the sake of public. Some governments (local or central) actively encourage the creation of public art by pursuing a public art policy.The primary purpose of such a public art policy followed by authorities (mainly municipalities) is to determine the key aims and objectives of public art schemes in terms of the significances for and contributions to public spaces, cities and societies. Likewise, the public art policy provides guidelines and procedures by which the city manages its artworks through the processes of acquisition (provision), realization, conservation and inventory of

1 public art. Also, such public art policy is designed and pursued as a part of wider urban planning strategies. In other words, public art policy should be integrated to the broad urban planning vision and strategies of cities.

Obviously, the perspective towards the public art varies from one culture (or, city or society) to another. It is also possible to observe the changes in the public art policy of a city in different historical periods. In fact, this can be clearly seen in the case of Turkey, and specifically in the example of Ankara.

Since there is currently no national public art policy, each municipality pursues a different public art strategy and practices. In the case of Ankara, the public art strategy has been of a great importance since Ankara became the capital city of the new Republic. Both the public art and public space were used to represent the ideology of the new Republic. In the very first years of the Republic, Ankara was planned to create a modern city. The main squares and governmental buildings were designed and constructed to represent ideological symbols and to create a national collective memory. The public artworks were designed to narrate progressive reform messages, such as the creation of new nation-state, the victory of Turkish war of independence, and Ataturk‘s reforms, and to emphasize the power of the new nation-state and its effects on social life. In the 1970s, new and unique public artwork projects were promoted by the local authority to enhance the urban culture of Ankara in conjunction with the early-Republican period. Sculptures were located in the public buildings, pedestrian streets and squares of the city.

Briefly put, the era from the 1920s to the 1990s was rich in terms of the creation of public spaces and squares. Likewise, public artwork constructed in Ankara during these years were important in terms of creating national (collective) memory and presenting the symbols of the Republic ideology (nation-state), and urban culture which was nurtured by the rhetoric of modernism. However, after 1994, this process was changed through the new public space and public art strategy of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (AMM). The Mayor Gökçek, who was elected in the 1994 local election, has gained a political success over the last seventeen years through the three successive elections; and he has become a very important political figure who has shaped both the fortune and the urban space of Ankara. The Mayor Gökçek has presented conservative and religious ideology to some extent. His period has been dominated by conservative and pro-Islamist vision which became an integral part of the implementations of AMM. Also, the Municipality integrated themselves easily to the neo-liberal economic policies.

2

However, the significance of public spaces and its components have been restructured expeditiously within the context of various urban space developments in Ankara especially in the last two decades. The nature and character of public spaces together with its components are subject to a decline process in the city; accompanied by evolution, conversion, trivialization and even demolishment processes. The existing significant public spaces are started to loose its characteristics by different interventions and developments that effect its constituents including public artworks. In public spaces, different reactions and endamagements to public artworks occurred by local authorities and societies. The public spaces produced by local authorities resemble each other through their vision, characteristics and components they include. The components like public artworks located in these public spaces are produced with a lack of aesthetical, spatial, and public concerns. In Ankara this situation consecutively, has led the decline and deprivation of public spaces likewise their specific components to decay, trivatilize and loose their sifnificances. The transformation of public space is an important problem for Ankara concerning a general urban necessity, besides public art as a significant component of urban space is a particular case in order to analyse the decay the characteristics of public space‘s elements.

Regarding today‘s public art strategy in Ankara, Yağcı (2006) claims that it has been shaped in the local authority‘s nippers. Over the last two decades, Ankara has not had any integrated and holistic public art strategy. All public art projects have been planned through piecemeal policies by the Metropolitan Municipality. This period is an important transformation era which presents a new understanding and strategy towards public artworks by jeopardizing the promoted strategy of the early periods.

This thesis is the outcome of the curiosity which was built on the observation of the public art schemes of AMM. By detecting and spotting the new public artwork projects in the citizens‘ everyday life and seeking to make sense of them, I have asked many times the question of ‗why‘ such public artwork projects have been constructed in the public spaces of this city, and what and how they have contributed to the public spaces of this city and urban life. As I read, saw and witnessed the interventions and renovation projects of AMM on the existing public artworks (especially those from the early-Republican period), I have again asked ‗why‘ the existing public artworks have been moved from their locations, or why they have been damaged under the guise of renewal or restoration. Then this thesis has come out of this interest to become the answers of these questions.

3

1.2. Aims and objectives of the study

This research aims to study the public art policies, interventions, statements of AMM and their effects in public spaces of the city since the mid-1990s. It particularly seeks to assess the spatial contributions of the public art schemes to the public spaces of Ankara and the city over the last seventeen years. Finally, by discussing the pros and cons of the recent policies, interventions of AMM over the last almost two decades, it seeks to give hints about the possible necessary public art policies and strategies for Ankara‘s future.

To achieve these goals, this thesis first seeks to investigate the concept of ‗public art‘, the types, characters and significances of public artworks by reviewing the existing literature on the subject. Also, it tries to investigate the contributions of public artwork to public space, city, urban life and society under four perspectives -political-ideological, spatial, social and economical perspectives. These perspectives provide us with a theoretical basis for discussing how far a city‘s public artwork strategies and policies contribute politically, ideologically, spatially, socially and economically. This research, however, has opted for concentrating mainly on the spatial contributions of public art strategies and policies, and aims to examine the AMM‘s public art policies and strategies from this perspective.

The investigation of the public art strategies and policies of Ankara starts with the period from the late 1920s to the mid-1990s. The research seeks to provide a very brief explanation on this period‘s approach of the public art, thereby providing a background to understand what has tried to be changed, kept or maintained, and renewed. This study aims to examine the multi-dimensional spatial contributions of public artworks to the public spaces of Ankara and the city by carrying out in-depth investigations on different public art interventions, strategies and policies of AMM since 1994. In other words, the period between the years 1994 and 2011 is investigated in-depth by providing a number of examples on different public art interventions, strategies and policies of AMM. The investigations are carried out on three types of examples (cases):

i) the examples of existing public artworks which left a mark on Ankara and its public spaces,

ii) the examples of the public art projects which were newly designed and built,

iii) the examples of the public art projects which were proposed, but were not implemented, and those which were proposed to be constructed in the future.

All the analyses of these multiple examples seek to draw and discuss the policies and perspective of the local authority on public artworks. 4

1.3. Research Methodology

In order to define a general approach for the thesis, the concept of public artwork is analyzed with an intensive literature survey to provide a base for the discussions for the case study related. Public art has recently created a theoretical background, this study in the intensive literature survey, realized an archival research within content analysis and sampling methods.

Each society and city introduces its specific features based on its cultural, social, historical backgrounds even so public art has a universal theoretical background but. This study aims to introduce the unique perspective of public art- public space phenomenon in Ankara. As Ankara Metropolitan Municipality doesn‘t have specific policy on public artworks, strategies and policies are aimed to be revealed by analyzing different cases in Ankara. Therefore, this research employs multiple case studies as the research methodology. To examine the multi-dimensional spatial contributions of public artworks to the public spaces of Ankara and the city, it examines a number of cases on different public art interventions, strategies and policies of AMM between the years 1994 and 2011. The cases which are examined in this thesis are selected to represent the strategies, interventions and policies of AMM on:

i) the existing public artworks which left a mark on Ankara and its public spaces,

ii) the public art projects which were newly designed and built,

iii) the public art projects which were proposed, but were not implemented, and those which were proposed to be constructed in the future.

This study is based on analyzing different samplings which are specifically chosen projects, practices, policies and discourses of AMM since 1994 in order to provide a rich context for understanding the phenomena under study in public spaces of Ankara. The main reason behind the selection of the multiple cases is the opportunity they would offer to reveal the general policies of municipality in which the similar and distinct political, spatial, social and economical features that they display.

Through the analysis, AMM‘s approaches on public art have been reviewed. Within this respect, in order to illustrate this approach, various examples of public art practices are analyzed relating to public spaces in which they are located. The analysis compromises various public art practices and interventions within four themes including first, the effect of moral values on the perspective of the local authority towards public art works in Ankara; second approaches towards the existing public artworks and assets in existing

5 public spaces; third, approaches on creating new public artworks in new or existing public spacesand finally approaches on proposed and unrealized projects.

This study undertakes a situational analysis of the cases, by observing the specific case areas and using visual and written sources.

The empirical data of this study is gathered from various sources including research archives and reports (academic articles, books, book chapters, master‘s and doctoral theses), newspapers, news channels and reviews based on the subject of the research. Also, direct observation is used. By visiting the sites under investigation and by documenting them via photos, the data to prove the arguments put forth by this thesis were gathered. A personal archive made up of collages of serial photographs in public art survey was formed. Some visual documents (photographs, conceptual diagrams) were collected from secondary resources.

This study has a limitation. Although multiple cases introduces various approaches on public artworks in urban spaces of Ankara, the results of the interventions remain limited and considering the existing broad literature as the frame of reference and the selected case study area; thus the study was not able to deeply examine the effects of each component revealed from this inquiry.The examination of the cases could have been much moredetailedparticularly by taking the views ofthe largergroups, including citizens and professionals. However, rather than investigating a single or a few public art schemes in detail; this research opted for examining multiple cases. By analyzing various public art project examples pursued by AMM between 1994 till 2011 and realized in different public spaces of Ankara, it seeks to draw attention to similar features of the multiple cases and thereby coming to general conclusions about the public art interventions, strategies and policies of AMM.

1.4. Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is composed of four main chapters which are Introduction; Public Art and the City; Public Art Policy in Ankara and Conclusion. Chapter 1 is the introduction of the thesis that presents the aim of the study, method of the study and Structure of the thesis. Chapter 2 sets the theoretical framework of this study. It introduces the concept of public art under four main sections. It defines what ‗public art‘ is, explains the types of public artworks in public space, its manifestations in public sphere, and its contributions to public space. Chapter 3 focuses on the public art policy in Ankara. It discusses first, the public art strategy from the early-Republican period to mid-1990s. Second, examines the public art

6 strategy of AMM between 1994 and 2011 in detail which is the main research of this thesis and descents the particular approaches on public artworks after mid-1990s within the aim of introducing the public art policy, strategies and practices of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (AMM) in public spaces of Ankara. Chapter 4 is the Conclusion of this thesis. Based on the results of this research, first it summarizes the findings of this research, second it discusses the positive and negative aspects of the Metropolitan Municipality‘s interventions and policies of public art over the seventeen years in relation to theoretical findings. Finally, it provides some recommendations on the future public art strategy and policies of Ankara.

7

CHAPTER 2

PUBLIC ART AND THE CITY

The aim of this section is to draw a theoretical framework for this thesis. It seeks to provide definitions of public art, its types in public space, manifestations in public sphere and finally contributions of public art in public space.

2.1. What is ‘public art’?

It is substantial to properly define implementations of artworks that are sited and displayed in public realm. Presenting an accurate explanation for ‗public art‘ is difficult because of variable and challenging explanations of the terms ‗art‘ and ‗public‘. ‗Art‘ is a continuously developing practice which regenerates and re-writes its own definition. Likewise, ‗public‘ is a challenging term which includes correlations with the spatial, social and economic dynamics that are also subject to transitions and changes with new developments and technology.

Despite these difficulties, ‗public art‘, in general terms, can be explained as the creation, management and mediation of art in public spaces outside museums and galleries (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 1). It is the artistic expression of art practitioner presented within the public space, where it is accessible to a broad audience (the general public). In a general sense, Worth (2003, p. 50) claims that art and design ―are defined by their role as cultural record, comment, reflection or intervention, presented with aesthetic intelligence and skill‖, and public art is emerged in public space for its art and design purpose targets to access its audience (including individuals that would compose communities and public).

Public art is an umbrella term which includes different kind of art forms. It is either purchased with public funds, or it comes into the public domain by donation, public display or sometimes unsanctioned. It can be created considering or irrespectively to a location where it is situated and who sees, experiences or internalizes it. Artwork in public domain 8 can be expressed with polynomial expressions in which some of them would even collide. For instance, public art can be created subject to funding or/and autonomously, it would emerge officially sanctioned or/and unsanctioned, it is subject to local public or/and subject to economical relation of global world.

The transaction of ‗public‘ and ‗private‘ generates the basis of public art rationalization. Phillips (Out of Order: The Public Art Machine, 1988, p. 98) expresses that ‗public‘ and ‗private‘ are two different but interdependent realms. She (1998) defines ‗public‘ as things that exist only outside private denying ―the essential and complex relationship between the two‖ (Out of Order: The Public Art Machine, 1988, p. 98). According to Rendell (2003), ‗art‘ (private art) describes an object and ‗public‘ suggests the terrain into which the object is placed. Rendell (2003) discusses public art where the ‗art‘, believed to derive from the ‗private‘ world, the personal interests of the individual artist, is placed into the ‗public‘, where the public indicates a passive and homogenous body of people, or a social group. She (2003) explains public art in-between the interaction of ‗inside‘ world of theory and the ‗outside‘ world of practice. In this sense, public art expresses a subjective and personal activity of artwork (object) placing in public1 space which represents the placing of a private self in a public space.

In theory, the term ‗public art‘ denotes any work of art which is designed for and sited in a space (public arena) accessible to the general public, which can be varied from a public square to a wall inside a building open to the public access. One of the main discussions of public art is the notion that art derives its ‗publicness‘ from where it is located (Phillips, 1988)and from the accessibility of art by public. The physical qualities of the site where art exists and accessibility to it constitute the existence of public art within a physical space (public space). So, public space in which an artwork is located refers to both indoor and outdoor spaces that are accessible to a wide public including different variety of examples, such as:

open plazas, streets, pedestrian areas, main thoroughfares,

parks, recreational reserves,

road reserves, gateways, entrance routes, transport corridors, railway stations, transport hubs, car parks,

government offices, community centres, library foyers, schools and educational institutions, hospitals, research centres, law courts, police stations, theatres,

1 It should be referred that the social space of public art encompasses out numbering individuals that means both private and public. 9

religious places (churches, mosques, synagogues, and other public places of worship), public museums and libraries, university or college campuses and other major public spaces.

However, these examples above are not enough to exemplify the public space in which artworks can occur. Phillips (1988) explains that, with a broadening perspective to the conception of ‗public‘, public art can happen at almost any time, with anyone, and virtually anywhere. Although there are a small number of memorable examples, public art can even occur in galleries, museums, and other private settings. Furthermore, artworks can be designed in public space which cannot be accessed physically, but can be observed and experienced by seeing or hearing it. For example, contemporary art practices also occur in the artistic lightening practices of sky, building, and environment. Or, an art work occurs in a wall where visual access is possible, but public access may not be possible, it can be seen and experienced despite its location.

The generalisation of public art, as a kind of specific art shown in art gallery expanding onto outdoors, is not accurate in broad sense. Miles (1997) states that creating and commissioning art for public spaces and the establishment of museum may both share the same ideology being cases of public good aimed at social stability. However, the experience of art in public spaces differs, because art is framed by its location in a social and physical setting ―which is never successfully colonized as an art space‖ (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 14). Public art exists in tangible reality and actual locations –not surrounded with neutral walls. Its characteristics are composed of unique combination of physical elements which are: length, depth, height, texture, and shape of walls and rooms; scale and proportion of plazas, buildings, or landscape elements; existing conditions of lighting, ventilation, traffic patterns; distinctive topographical features, human existence and behaviour and so forth (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 14). Public art can be defined as ‗site- specific‘ art. This means that it exists in a certain place in which the elements of that place, the work of art, location, audience and usage that place are taken into consideration while planning and creating the artwork. The term ‗site-specific‘ art also refers to both art made for installation in a given site, and art which is the design of the site itself. Site-specific characteristic of public art has the power to reunite and amplify the unique cultural and physical features of the site, environment and the city within.

‗Public sphere‘ is an area of social life where people can gather, discuss and identify environment they live in, and through that discussion and sharing influence their everyday life, perspective and personality. It can be seen as ―a realm of social life in which public

10 opinion can be formed‖ (Asen, 1999). Public art is an effective element occurring in public sphere as a critical node. It is a component of people‘s everyday life, creating an environment in which people can gather to discuss and examine. It is also seen as an element with a power to educate and enlighten people, and to transform the environment people experience. Phillips (1988) argues that public art does not only derive its ‗publicness‘ from where it is located and the issue of public is not only a spatial construct. She (1988, p. 97) demonstrates that public art derives its ‗publicness‘ from ―the nature of its engagement with the congested cacophonous intersections of personal interests, collective values, social issues, political events and wider cultural patterns that mark out our civic life‖.

The power of art surges reaching the large masses and increasing the public‘s understanding of and access to art. Art exists in public realm as ―a critical public catalyst‖ (Phillips, 1988, p. 97). Public art occurs in public space which is accessible to large masses of people, aiming to surge the power of art and by its existence art gives significance to public space by attracting attention, educating and motivating people to gather around, discuss about, and debate on it. Hence, public art, itself, has also the power of creating public sphere. The meaning of public artwork comes into existence by ―the nature of messages‖, its objectives, through the inclusion in public space; the embracement by and harmonisation with physical environment along with public, creation of integrity and appreciation (Brandao, 2003).

Since public art occurs in public sphere, the artwork with its production and realization process, its design, form and material, as well as its relation to and effects on its audiences (individuals, community or public),and the space (i.e., built environment and city), have been the general issues of discussions in the literature of public art. Therefore, public art has become an issue which is interrelated with different professions, like art and craft, architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, city planning, sociology, and philosophy. Public art, as Phillips (1988) expresses, is a profession whose practitioners are in the production of beautifying or enlivening public spaces or entertaining people.

The definition and critique of public art extend to a series of overlapping issues because it occurs in public realm. Even if the definitions of public art create a general understanding of the term and its relations, there is no static and theoretic explanation for it. Phillips (1988) explains that it is a field without clear definitions, without a constructive theory, and without coherent objectives. Also, Miles (Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 1) explains that it is an ―impoverished field‖ and marginal area in

11 practices which has grown separately from discussions on the potentials and dynamics of space and cities with mainly untouched theoretical perspectives.

2.2. Types of public artworks in public space

Public art excludes no media, materials, or process. It can require years of planning, consultation and approval to develop, or it can occur spontaneously and unsanctioned. It can be momentary or lasting. It can at once excavate the past and envision the future. With a broadening of the conception of public, it can happen at almost any time, with anyone, and virtually anywhere… Public art is always art. (Phillips, 1999, p. 6)

Instead of arguing the variations, Phillips (1999) emphasizes the artistic vision of public art in above quotation. However, public art has been categorised by different scholars featuring artistic fields, used materials, methods, scale, functions in space, and its legal presence.

Public art is a wide term including different kind of artworks, and performances with significant and artistic feature, occurring in publicly accessible space. After evaluating how different kinds of artworks appear and interact in urban space without labelling fields of arts, materials or legal presence, it is possible to categorise nine type of public art.

First of all, artefacts with artistic value in public space are considered as public art. Artwork which has survived from antiquity consists of various types of artefacts generally produced by handmade stonework, ironwork, copper work etc. including statues, funerary monuments and other religious or architectural sculptures. They are important because they show critical traces of history and how city was developed. For instance Julian (Julianus) Coloumn (or Monument) is a significant artifact in Ankara which is estimated to be erected in memory of Julian Apostata in the year 3632 (Erdoğan, Günel, & Narince, 2007).

2 Julien Coloums is dedicated to Julian Apostata as it has an inscription as ‗judge of the world entirely from English Ocean till barbarian tribes‘ on top of the coloumn and it is estimated that there exists the statue of Julian on top of the coloumn which do not exist today (Kenthaber Kültür Kurulu, 2009; Erdoğan, Günel, & Narince, 2007). 12

Figure 1.The Great Sphinx of Giza in Egypt and Julien Coloumn in Ankara as artefacts of the cities they exist Source: (Kenthaber Kültür Kurulu, 2009)

Second, traditional artworks designed by an artist with different characteristics on urban space which includes sculptures (historical sculptures, modern sculptures, architectural sculptures, plop arts3), statues, monuments, mosaics, tapestry, fountains, specifically designed water courses etc. sited in public space with aesthetical, commemorative, decorative, ornamental, or functional (utilitarian4) characteristics. These are designed as a particular element in place and produced within an artistic manner or designed by an artist, produced by different kind of materials, like stone, wood, metal, plastic, glass, clay, and textile. They are the common examples that would be confronted in public‘s everyday life including in open public spaces, parks, and roads.

Figure 2. The Sculptures of Ġnsan Hakları (‗Human Rights‘) and Madenci (‗Miner‘) that are designed by Metin Yurdanur in Ankara Source: (Çankaya Belediyesi, 2010)

Another type of public art is the public artworks which can be integrated with public space’s components. Such artworks include wall paintings, frescos, mural, wall relief, drawings, illustrations, artworks, stickers, posters, stencil art, guerilla art, chalk art, wheat pasting, and street installation. They may be sited temporary, ephemeral or permanent in public arena or on the components of public arena, like walls, ceilings, pavements, floors, windows, staircases, entrances and exits, rooftops or bridges.

Fourth, architectural artworks (which may include buildings, bridges, cathedrals, mosques, etc.), architectural art installation, building modifications, temporary architectural constructions can also be regarded as public art. The Millennium Dome in

3 Plop art is type of public artwork used to describe large, abstract, modernist or contemporary sculpture, made for government or corporate plazas, and other public spaces. 4 Public art can occur in functional characteristics with utilitarian purposes such as seating, lighting, furniture, bollards, signage, rubbish bin surrounds. 13

London is an example for architectural constructions which was built to celebrate particular events.

Figure 3.The Scott Monument in Edinbrough is an architectural artwork example Source: Personal Archive

The fifth is the new-generation public artworks which creates different mediums for display in public space. They are generated with the rise of technology, including multi- media, video, computer-based decorative artworks which would use the techniques of photography, images, lightening, sound works collage, video shoots, neon sign or billboard display.

Figure 4. ‗Yekpare‘ (monolithic)5 video mapping show in HaydarpaĢa Station and the lightening show of Sydney Opera House. Source: (thecoolist, 2010) (WebUrbanist, 2009)

Temporary manifestations including art performances6, events, festivals and happenings in public sphere in which people can experience and interact momentary, including transient displays and street performances like dance performance, street theatre, musical performance, puppeteering, art performances using the new media presentations, and flash

5 ‗Yekpare‘ (monolithic) which was created by CandaĢ ġiĢman, Deniz Kader and Görkem ġen, was a video mapping show (or urban screening show) occurred in the program of 2010 European Capital of Culture on 11.12.2010. It was a lightning performance that took place on HaydarpaĢa Train Station‘s outside walls (Ġstanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture, 2010). 6Schechner (What is Performance Studies Anyway?, 1998, p. 361) explains performance as ―an event, action, item, or behaviour‖. He (What is Performance Studies Anyway?, 1998, p. 361) claims that approaching phenomena as performance has certain advantages and he states that ―one can consider things as provisional, in- process, existing and changing over time, in rehearsal, as it were.‖ 14 mob7, are also considered as public art. According to Roberts (1998), artworks or performances (including the examples given above) of who wish to make interventions in public issues which sometimes occurs even surreptitious, can also be considered as public art. These works of art which necessarily addresses and engages with the public, are created in an attempt to change the existing conditions or to make people aware of a condition that they previously had no knowledge of. Likewise, the artwork of Salcedo which was created for the 8th Istanbul Biennale in 2003 and installed in Beyoğlu, presents a victim of mass violence in Colombia. She wanted to commemorate anonymous victims, portraying their loss through empty chairs in a visual that resembles a mass grave.

Figure 5.The work of Doris Salcedo in Istanbul called ―1600 Empty Chairs‖ that stands for a victim of mass violence in her home country Colombia. Source: (WebUrbanist, 2009)

Seventh, exhibitions in public space which may include single or various artists based on the subject matter are also a type of public art. These exhibitions may generally be displayed for a period of time. Temporary exhibitions and transient displays (eg. Andy Goldsworthy's Snowballsin London in 2000) are examples of this type of public art.

7 Flash mob is an act that is realized by a group of people who gather suddenly in a public place to perform a remarkable and outwardly meaningless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and artistic expression. The Flash mob acts are realized in Ankara by the group called ―Flash Mob Society‖. For instance they performed Freezing Flash Mob in Kızılay Metro Station and Chicken Flash Mob in Kuğulu Park in 23 April 2010. 15

Figure 6.Andy Goldsworthy‘s snowballs exhibited in the streets and public spaces of London in June 2000, and the works are melted over a period of three to five days to reveal different materials he had packed into them. Source: (Channel4, 2000)

Likewise, environmental and ecological based artworks are another type of public art. There are such examples as land art, earthwork, earth art and eco-art in which the elements of nature are the materials and product of artwork and nature itself becomes its site of display. Nature, landscape and the work of art are inextricably linked. Environmental type of artworks use the materials of nature, such as soil rock, organic materials (leaves, branches, logs), water with introduced materials such as concrete, metal, asphalt, mineral pigments. Another environmental type of artwork is environmental sculpture which creates or alters the environment for the viewer, as opposed to presenting itself figuratively or monumentally before the viewer. A frequent trait of larger environmental sculptures is that one can actually enter or pass through the sculpture and be partially or completely surrounded by it.

Figure 7. Earth art of Mud Maid (left) and the giant‘s head (right) in The Lost Gardens of Heligan the botanic garden in Cornwall, UK Source: (The Lost Gardens of Heligan)

Finally, there are also artworks integrated with built environment used as urban design elements. Artist designed benches, lightening, seatings, other street furniture and amenities, decorative and ornamental art works applied to or designed for buildings, gates, signs, , friezes, and stained glass are examples of such public artworks. These works of art and craft in urban design also include examples in different scales, such as some details in streetscapes (eg. text or poetry inscribed in a footpath or park bench) (Roberts, 1998),or in broader sense, a public space or a garden with artistic landscape elements which reflects or interprets broader aesthetical, public or social concerns (eg. art parks, artistically designed theme parks or some special examples of artistically designed public spaces8).

8 Maya Ying Lin, Vietnam Veterans Memorial 16

Figure 8. This unusual pieces of street furniture was designed by Gaudi in 1906 Source: (, 2008)

The categories of public art presented above are classified according to their distinct relationship with the space.

2.3. Manifestations of public art in public sphere

In order to identify the subsistence of public art in public realm, the existence and effects of artworks in public realm, as well as its meaning and significance, should be widely examined. In the following sections, public art is explained through, first, its appearance in public space, second, its characters, third, its permanence and temporary character and finally its legal nature.

2.3.1. Appearance of public art in public space

In the second half of the 20th century, art and aesthetic philosophy referencing avant-garde approaches puts forward that art and aesthetics should be inquired in ―life‖ itself. This thought creates the basis of living and creating city and aesthetical particles or artworks in city (Erzen, 2009). In order to demonstrate the appearance of artwork within public spaces and cities, Worth (2003) makes three categories of public art: public art, art as feature event inpublic places, and public place itself as art form.

According to Worth (2003), ‗public art‘ is a physical element in public space, including monuments and memorials which arise out of the desire to publicly celebrate individuals or events of importance. She (2003) explains the term justifying their existence in public realm with little or no controversy, by giving statues, landscapes, built and virtual environments as examples. These works become a part of the official record of history and heritage in public places.

‗Art as Feature Event in Public Places‘ embodies the public space as outdoors and alternative theatre or gallery space (Worth, 2003, p. 50). The works of art may be designed,

17 integrated into a public space with intended purposes for public or may occur as an unplanned, casual formation. It reflects a highly personal expression for the artist and its meaning may be shared by the public, but more often, it ―is reinvented according to the viewers‘ background references‖ (Worth, 2003, p. 50). These works of art can be objects, performances, public events, real and virtual environments.

On the other hand, public space can exhibit itself as an art form. Worth explains public space in a distinctive point of view. Instead of creating homogenized, ordinary, generic ‗placelessness‘ of so much urban development, she (2003, p. 51) suggests that it is possible to create a powerful sense of ‗place as a work of art‘.

In the built environment, it is possible for all the components that make up the infrastructure and the features of the place, to combine and create the magic that makes it art. Public places which promote cultural interchange and influence a heightened awareness, represent defining measures of art and can be an artwork in itself. This art form carries the greatest challenges and potentially offers the greatest value for the urban environment. (Worth, 2003, p. 51)

The Church of the Sagrada Familia and the ParcGüell are the two finest examples in this category.

Figure 9.The Church of the Sagrada Familia and the ParcGüell in Barcelona designed by Gaudi Source: (Wikipedia, n.d.)

This categorization may even bring the discussion of ―The City as a Work of Art‖ which is the name of Donald Olsen‘s (1986) one of the books. Olsen (The City as a Work of Art, 1986, p. 3) explains ―the city as a work of art‖9 as: ―any beauty it might possess would be incidental to its real nature, any visible structure one imposed by historical necessity rather than artistic intent‖. In other words, every detail, which composes the city, has a significant power in creating the image and identity of the city. Sennett (The Conscience of the Eye :

9Olsen (The City as a Work of Art, 1986, p. 3)does not discuss the denotation of ―the city as a work of art‖ as an individual creation without its main significant contents and forces. 18

The Design and Social Life of Cities, 1992, p. 16) also supports Olsen‘s perspective explaining that every detail seen on earth directs to evoke the creative capacity and power of people. In modern cities, these creative power should extrovert people and form a humane and significant condition. Sennett (The Conscience of the Eye : The Design and Social Life of Cities, 1992, p. 16) argues that our culture needs an art of evolvement which leads people to become stable and powerful personalities that can cope with difficulties, learning from situations and from each other. Thus, artwork within public space of a city becomes an element in people‘s everyday life, with a significant power to evoke the creative capacity of people. It enriches the lives of its users, life within city and enhances its physical surrounding environment and also the city‘s image and identity.

2.3.2. The characters of public artwork

Public Arts Study for the Arts & Cultural Council of Greater Rochester (Planning Council, 2003)explains public art as objects in our environment for public use and pleasure that may display historical, aesthetic and functional characters.

First, artworks with a historical and commemorative character can embody in expressing historical events, recall important activity and people aiming to link the public with its history and create a collective memory.

Besides, artworks in general are created and displayed for the purpose of aesthetic needs. Principally, the artwork is an aesthetical object that would influence public with its existence (aesthetics of the artwork itself), and also, it may occur within the aim of answering the aesthetics coexistence of the place it occurs (aesthetics of the artwork and the environment within). The primary purpose of decorative artworks is to enhance the environment or structure aesthetically and create significance in public space.

In addition, public art can occur in functional characteristics with utilitarian purposes. Seating, lighting, furniture, bollards, signage, rubbish bin surrounds, window treatments, the objects that serve as bus stops, gates and information boards in urban spaces and produced by a designer or artist can be considered within this group. These characters may come along together in public artworks. An artwork with a historical or functional character also have aesthetical feature to be regarded as an artwork. Public artwork may even include three of the characters.

19

Figure 10.Paris Métro station entrance designed by Hector Guimard in the art nouveau style Source: (Art Nouveau, n.d.)

However, this kind of categorization is not enough to explainprecisely the characters of public art in modern cities. These characters that the public art may display can be individual or communal expression or manifestation to everyday life, social, political and ideological notions. In today‘s cities, the public arthas started to be used as the main elements of advertisement industry.

2.3.3. Permanence of public art

In public space, any component or project‘s permanency of existence is important. They are designed for the circumstances and the objectives of public space. The materials, maintenance and resistance programs which generally generate the cost of the project should be well thought of. Public art as an element in public space may be designed, installed and displayed for permanent or temporary basis.

‗Permanent public artworks‘ are designed for long-term lasting in public space. Generally, permanent public art projects are statues and monuments. These long-lasting public artworks would commemorate a person or event but, there also exists other examples depicting the artist's own themes or vision. The materials of artworks are chosen resistance and durable for severe weather conditions. Despite their resistant materials, they would also need a maintenance program. Since these projects are permanent, they can be integrated into the architecture of public buildings or spaces. The permanent art work is going to be passed down through years of existence and become a heritage for public. Permanent examples can be experienced more than one time, it becomes integrated with the place and each experience can add new meanings for its audiences. It can create a stable effect in mental map of the public.

20

‗Temporary public artworks‘, on the other hand, are installed on a temporary or ephemeral basis using wide range of materials –even including ephemeral and momentary materials- and there exists a time limit for its exhibition. The artwork or event may be momentary or remain for a fixed time. The commissioning body for the public art project decides this time frame. Also plans for returning the site to its original condition should be considered for the public artwork designed to be removed after display (PPS, 2011). Temporary public art designs would only require approval of the selection committee and project funder (city agency, private property owner, or private donor). After design approval, the artwork would go immediately into the final design stage; no maintenance program would be required. Temporary artworks may be created with unusual media or installed in unexpected places. They may benefit a particular cause; attract public awareness of an important or timely issue; or simply add momentary beauty to a site (Arts & Culture Council, 2011).

Many cities have embraced the installation of temporary public art projects to incorporate art into the everyday lives of their residents. These projects can be used to display the work of renowned artists outside of a gallery or museum setting, making them more accessible to the general public. Especially cities with a purpose to create a public art tradition generally use temporary public art to arouse attention and interest. This kind of art projects widens city‘s public art collection and creates a platform to introduce artists to the general public. Temporary public art projects would support and govern artists and foundations with (generally) small and manageable budgets and various materials to use (PPS, 2011).

Temporary public art projects consist of wide-range of examples including performance, garden planting, text installations and multi media. Pavement drawings (eg.,Julian Beever‘s chalk drawings); temporary exhibitions (eg. Cow Parade), transient displays (eg.,Andy Goldsworthy's Snowballs) or temporary architectural constructions (eg., the Atomium in Brussels10) can be given as the examples of such public art projects.

In contemporary cities, some approaches are aroused for commissioning public art strategically considering both temporary and permanent works. As a strategy, temporary pieces build a familiarity amongst locals with the notion to introduce artworks with public and to promote the location and city. This process creates a conscious for the public art among citizens which would lead for its appreciation and continuousness. If a temporary artwork has introduced effectively and exceptionally in a site, ―the authority has much more debate and informed opinion to draw upon to arrive at a well-considered approach to more

10Like the Eiffel Tower, Atomium was built as a temporary structure but had received monument status and stayed for 50 years. 21 permanent work‖ (Lovell, 2010). Permanence is a relative concept, as very few buildings, just like public art, today are permanent (Lovell, 2010).

2.3.4. Legal characteristics of public art

Public artworks may be discussed through its legal characteristics. Public art in contemporary cities may appear with an authoritative permission, approval or acceptance which can be categorised as ‗sanctioned‘, or with an autonomous, self-governing process which can be classified as ‗un-sanctioned‘.

‘Sanctioned public art‘ implementations usually appear in places which are accessible to public with the authorization of the landowner, public and private owner or administrator. Implementation of such public art provision may occur by competitions, consultation, managing and commissions funding of institutions, specialist agencies, local authorities and other governmental authorities.

Sanctioned public art would be installed with various public and private pecuniary resources and supplies. Legal public artworks and projects are funded principally by public funds, such as the central or local government funds and credits. These kind of funded public artworks are known as state-sponsored or state-sanctioned art. Sanctioned public artworks are also funded by private funds from legal entities, such as individuals, private developers and businesses. Developer-based public art formations have a primary objective to provide a mechanism through which private developments can include public art as a sanctioned amenity contribution. Furthermore, multiple funding sources including public and private partnerships, non-profit organizations and agencies are substantial for public art implementations.

On behalf of public art policies and government initiatives, some agencies actively support and head the creation of public artworks and projects. For example, ‗Percent for Art‘ policy is a widely implemented legislation over the majority of European countries, Australia, various cities and states in the USA and Canadato increase and promote the implementation artworks within public space. The governmental initiatives like ‗Percent for Art‘ policy offer a legal recourse to obtain funds for public art from non-compliant city agencies (PPS, 2011). In other words, passing Percent for Art encumbers a percentage per year for the commissioning of public artworks, which will usually be sited in the project being constructed. Within this policy, 1% of the cost of any publicly funded capital,

22 infrastructural and building development11 can be allocated to the commissioning of a work of art (Publicart.ie, n.d.). The limit of 1% of the construction cost for art is standard, but the amount implemented in variety of ways, changing from city to city (as local governmental policies), and country to country (state policies)12. In this way in the countries that implements Percent for Art legislation, a funding stream is guaranteed for public art projects regardless of city budgets or arts funding, it is also an indication for the continuity of public art projects every year, as long as the construction continues (PPS, 2011). This kind of a passing legislation convinces local authorities to adopt the specific policies which would introduce the basic notions of projects. For example, Arts Council (1991:16; cited in Miles, 1997, p. 66) pursue the following policies to commission a project within Percent for Art:

to make a place more interesting and attractive, to make contemporary arts and crafts more accessible to the public, to highlight the identity of different parts of a building or community, to increase a city‘s/county‘s/or company‘s investment in the arts, to improve the conditions for economic regeneration by creating a richer visual environment,

11 Capital programmes where the Per Cent for Art applies include: public housing projects, (social and affordable schemes); transport and roads; environmental schemes such as drainage schemes, pump stations and reservoirs; public buildings such as libraries, public offices, schools, hospitals, medical centres, prisons, arts buildings - cinemas, theatres, art centre; conservation works carried out to public buildings and sites and, urban and village renewal schemes. 12Percent-for-art legislation aims to provide an opportunity to work with and introduce public art to many city agencies, in many different types of projects, and in many locations city-wide. For instance the government of Quebec, Canada requires that the budget for all new publicly funded buildings set aside 1% for artwork. New York City has a law that requires that no less than 1% of the first twenty million dollars, plus no less than one half of 1% of the amount exceeding twenty million dollars be allocated for art work in any public building that is owned by the city. In contrast, the city of Toronto requires that 1% all of construction costs be set aside for public art, with no set upper limit. In the United Kingdom percent for art is discretionary for local authorities, who implement it under the broader terms of a section 106 agreement (part of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the British Parliament regulating the development of land in England and Wales) otherwise known as 'planning gain', in practice it is negotiable, and seldom ever reaches a full 1%, where it is implemented at all. In United Kingdom there is also a primary public art foundation called Arts Council England, which is a government-funded body dedicated to promoting the performing, visual (including public art) and literary arts in England. The Arts Councils promote a Percent for Art policy, through which a given percentage within the budget for a project is set aside for the commissioning of artworks (Miles, 1997, p. 3). A campaign in UK was also developed by Arts Council and public art agencies, in which the Percent for Art mechanism was a central strategy, along with demand for artists to be involved in the design stage of projects in which the campaign was created more success in convince local authorities and government departments than private-sector property developers (Miles, 1997, p. 66). According to Miles (1997), this campaign has never been adopted like that national Percent for Art policy would be adopted, or that the concept of ‗planning gain‘ would be used to impose art on developers. A percent for art scheme as a government programme exists in Ireland and is widely implemented by many local authorities. ‗The Per Cent for Art‘ scheme whereby 1% of the cost of any publicly funded capital, infrastructural and building development can be allocated to the commissioning of a work of art. The 1% is subject to a restriction and is available across all government departments. The Per Cent for Art scheme supports the commissioning of artworks in all art forms. In Queensland, Australia the ‗art + place‘ Queensland Public Art Fund provides funding by state government and a curatorial advisory committee for public art throughout the state. It encourages the commissioning of projects that bring together artists and communities, enliven public places, build local identity, and engage communities. 23

to create employment for artists, craftspeople, fabricators, suppliers and manufacturers of materials, and transporters, to encourage closer links between artists and craftspeople and the professions that shape our environment: architecture, landscaping, engineering and design.

Artworks in public realm do not only occur as approved projects by an authority, but also autonomously as an individual expression without any permission to express itself. ‗Un- sanctioned public art‘, in general terms, refers to surreptitious, often unexpected creation or installation of unofficial artwork on public realm without any explicit official permission. It is also expressed as illegal, independent, autonomous, self-directed, rebellious artistic expressions on public realm. Underground movements, such as ‗urban art‘, ‗‘, ‗‘ and ‗vigilante13 art‘, are categorized under unsanctioned public art. These terms expresses methods of art making where the artist creates generally anonymous art pieces on unauthorized locations in public places aiming to access a large audience in an anonymous way.

The underground art movements aim to create art as manifestation by intervening public spaces. They response to the perceived occupation of public space by commercial interests, the perceived banality of many authorized public art pieces and the frequent lack of authorized exhibition opportunities for artists. Unsanctioned public art is autonomous in two main reasons. First, they appear in urban scene illegally, and second, they reject both the art and property market mechanisms. In this sense, they differentiate from commodified art.

Unsanctioned artworks sited in public space or on the components of public space can be created by different kinds of means, methods or mediums including paintings, installations, performances or gatherings. Most recognized examples of unsanctioned public art include graffiti artworks14, stencil art, chalk art, stickers, wheat pasting, wall paintings (drawings, illustrations), sculptural graffiti, guerrilla installations, illegal postering, multimedia artworks (by using the techniques of photography, images, lightening, sound works collage, video projection, neon sign or billboard display), spontaneous performances, flash mobbing, art interventions (interventions on public space and also on artworks), (guerrilla knitting, or graffiti knitting).

13 A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts their own form of justice in response to a perception of insufficient response by the authorities. Vigilantes have been central to several creative fictional works and are often depicted as being heroes and retaliatory against wrongdoers (Wiki Answers). 14 Graffiti (the word ‗graffiti‘ is derived from the Latin word ‗graphium‘, which means ‗to write‘) can be defined as inscriptions, slogans and drawings which is scratched, scribbled or painted on a wall or other public or private surface. According to Simon Sadler (1999, 97) graffiti became regarded as a sign of the primitive energy of the everyday life of the masses. 24

Figure 11.Stencils of the famous unknown artist Banksy Source: (Banksy, n.d.)

All these examples of artworks present unique alternative practices on public space. They have common characteristics: 1) they use the public space and its elements as a canvas or medium; 2) they are not produced or supported by an authority, and 3) they have an unsanctioned or even illegal nature of production and display.

The motivations and objectives behind street artists vary from the aim of expanding artworks onto street to the aim of showing artist‘s (or non-artist‘s) political, individual, social, artistic expressions or to the aim of leaving a trace, mark or signature of an artist sometimes by writing a nickname or drawing a symbol (displaying his/her individuality) to be acknowledged by the public. Whatever the motivation is, unsanctioned public artworks leave a mark of individuality of the artist. Artists move through spaces which are dominated by walls belonging to others, continually reinforcing their claim and comment upon them. Scheepers (2004) argues that street artists do these acts in the name of individualism, to make social and political statements, or to promote their power of expression of uncensored opinions and non-restricted artistic expressions. Sennett (1992, p. 231) explains that in a city that belongs to no one, people have a desire to communicate and to leave an imprint of themselves, a record of their story‖ and he expresses the attributes of space as a platform to leave a ―mark of individuality‖ and communicate with public.

Figure 12.Unsanctioned public arts generally aims to access public with significant messages Source: (ecowatch, 2012) 25

Unsanctioned public art acknowledge and embrace the complexity of the modern world and its urban environments, and aims to show its reaction, identity or message by adding layers of different kinds of artworks on the varying and perpetually changing layers of urban elements; public spaces, streets, or walls. It attempts to amplify and intensify realizations of the complexities of urban environments and they can be understood as an expression of the myriad of individual particularities.

2.4. Contributions of public art in public space

Public space has an essential place in urban life, for the city, public and individuals, because it interrelates with social-cultural values and perceptions. Each constituent of public space has an influence on people. Public art, as an artwork, is a significant element on public realm, an intellectual and physical element that affects individuals and the public. Furthermore, it has a significant meaning for the city, public space, the public and individuals.

Public art is an umbrella term and there is no simple definition for it as explained in previous sections. Public art, including diverse range of artworks, activities and outcomes in public space can create significance for the public, public spaces and the city. Whatever the outcome, it has consistent qualities based on its effects and relation with its public space. In this section, aiming to create a theoretical background for assessment of public art in public realm, a detailed review of contributions of public art in public space is constituted including within four perspectives; spatial, social, political and ideological, social and economical contribution of public art.

2.4.1. Spatial Contributions of Public Art

Public space has a noteworthy place in urban life. The meaningful and integral elements it contains affect the meaning of public space. Public art, as an element in public space, invests a space with ―place making‖ qualities and culture, it has the capacity to interpret the historic, social, cultural and narrative touch. The main contributions of public art occur in public space and its features. Public art helps to make public spaces, buildings, open spaces and neighbourhoods attractive, interesting and memorable places where people want to visit, live, work and play. This section discusses the spatial contributions of public art to the space, the publicness of public space, its location, the identity of a space and quality of life.

26

2.4.1.1. Contributions to the space

Public art, whether temporal, ephemeral or permanent, has been performed through a physical public domain by which it becomes integral with the environment. Public art can assign meaning to urban environment through objects and actions including aesthetic component (Brandao, 2003). Public artwork itself embodies as an aesthetical component in public space. Also, it is a powerful craft which harmonizes with and enhances public space through its aesthetical means.

When the artwork is presented on the public space, it becomes an integral part of it. The physical and visual effect of a public artwork, sited in this physical domain, can bring significance through the relations of form, scale, colour, texture, use of materials, media or construction if these constitute a meaningful piece of artwork in public space (Worth, 2003). Public art can compose and fit with the other elements in public space to create an organized composition (Worth, 2003). The arrangements of elements that would relate to each other are considered to have a visual organization. The combination of physical elements of artwork and the environment creates the visual framework.The visual effect and significance of a public artwork is defined by physical quality factors. Visual quality results from the interpretation of physical character features that are altered by the viewer‘s perception of what is seen. These perceptions are based upon a viewer‘s cognitive insight of artwork itself and integration of landscape elements into a memorable object and urban space image, distinguishable from others. The physical harmony of public artwork and adaptation with public space can create significance. ―The visual effect is significant when the image of the place is made memorable‖ (Worth, 2003, p. 52).

Figure 13. Cloud Gate, a public artwork designed by Anish Kapoor, is the centerpiece of the Millennium Park in Chicago, Illinois, United States. Source: (DuameX, 2011)

The manifestation of artwork in public realm can differentiate with a diversity of physical outcomes of and approaches to public art. South Australian Government's ―Arts and Cultural Agency‖ explains the physical outcomes of public art in public space as functional,

27 decorative, iconic, integrated, site-specific, interpretive, and temporal (Arts SA, 2009). Physical nature of artwork would manifest in public space with its different characteristics. Artworks which have functional characterisics in public realm are designed for utilitarian purposes or adapted to a function or use for people. These utilitarian artworks can be exemplified as seating, lighting, furniture, bollards, signage, rubbish bin surrounds, window treatments, reception areas, or door handles. Decorative charactesreistics enhance aesthetics of public space or the structure in public space by artwork serving to decorate or embellish. The most common examples used as decorative purposes can be sculpture, rainwater heads, paving elements, multi media artworks and lighting. Artworks with iconic characteristics express stand alone or significant artwork in which the artist's approach is largely independent from other considerations (Arts SA, 2009). The basics of the artwork would be revealed as independent of other functions it may bring. Iconic artworks may include contemporary sculptures, water features, statues and busts. These examples occur in space as stand-alone artistic expressions, and they appeal to the artistic sense of eye and ear in public space. They can also act as landmark elements in public spaces or in cities. Artworks in public space have integrated characteristics that incorporate with the design of the built or natural environment. The artwork became a whole with environment by bringing aesthetical value. Integrated artworks may include floor and window design, lighting, landscaping and associated elements. They may also be decorative and/or functional. Artworks which are designed particularly for and responsive to a specific site can be termed as site-specific public art15. Site specific artworks are fed by the environment, location and community and the site with its components and dynamics can be a component for creation, production and display. Site-specific character of artwork responds to the site through scale, material, form, and concept. A site-specific work can be specific to a public plaza, a street, a park or an architectural construction. Interpretive characteristics of public art comprise the informative objective of artworks which is to describe, educate and comment on issues, events or situations. It has an affective and emotional function to make people think, imagine, sense and power to attract people to gather discuss, comment and interpret. Sculpture, landscaping elements, murals, text based work, signage, pavement inlays may have interpretive effects. As explained in the earlier sections, public artworks can also be designed to display in public space for permanent, temporary or ephemeral basis. These outcomes and/or approaches may emerge as singular effect, but generally integrated together. For instance, a public artwork may also manifests as functional, decorative and site-specific outcomes. This kind of categorization may represent an understanding of

15Site-specific public art has mentioned in detail under previous headings 28 objectives of creating significance through public art and how it effects physical urban environment.

Rapidly expanding development and redevelopment of cities, city centres and neighbourhoods, uniformity of development styles, with increasingly ubiquitous high technology, places become more and more similar. Thus, locations lose a distinctive ‗sense of place‘ and some meanings are lost, as places become increasingly homogenized. Recently, public art, as a component of public space has been used as a powerful means for creating a meaningful character or revealing the intrinsic character of a place, or creating significant features to a developed place to produce a physical character for a place and to increase the meaning people give to it. Some places are distinctive through their physical appearance; others are distinctive in a way the value attached to them.

Public artworks are aesthetical objects that would affect the physical, visual and spiritual nature of the space (McCarthy, 2006). Public art can create or reveal a sense of place in a symbolic and visually stimulating way by evoking some aspect of the social, natural, cultural, physical, political, economical or historical context of the location (Public Art Policy Development Group, 2009). They can make public spaces distinctive and also make the components of public spaces (eg., buildings, landscapes, streets) distinctive. Thus, public art can be used as a means for rehabilitation of space to add a ―spirit of place‖ by promoting the primacy of visual representation (Roberts, 1998).

Besides, public arts decorate a space with place-making qualities and culture. It can create meeting places and focal spots, and nodes of cities (Arts SA, 2009). In this way, it can improve city legibility by acting as a simple landmark16 (Porch, 2000) or signifiers of a place (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997). Artworks can be used with different range of scales aiming to create legibility of the area by encouragement of landmarks, signposts or gateways (McCarthy, 2006). For instance the monuments and sculptures in Atatürk Boulevard are planned with place making qualities and with different scales (see section 3.2.2.) which have significant effects on Atatürk Boulevard.

Public art can create meaningful spaces. Meaning, in general sense, can be explained as individuals‘ internalized feelings and ideas derived from their perception of what he/she sees, hears, touches which may consist of human activity or physical elements of environment, objects or situation (Vale & Warner, 1998). Meaning guides individual‘s

16 They can act as Lynch‘s strategic focal points; ―nodes‖ for cities and public spaces. According to Porch, public art can be seen as 'Punctuation in the Landscape' and the role of public art can be seen as forming a variety of ranging characteristics mainly improving city legibility by acting as a simple landmark (Porch, 2000). 29 psychological and physical selection. Public art can create connection with the public through its significant features and people can attach values to the artwork and the environment it exists. Lynch (1992) asserts that a city/ place can be meaningful (or it can ‗make sense‘) to people if they can read it and attach values to its image. More meaningful experiences will be retained and will be more easily retrievable in the future depending on the ‗strength‘ of their meaning (Vale & Warner, 1998).

As mentioned before public art practices denoted that public artworks, fed by the environment, location and community, create significance in place through art and promote a sense of place. Using or creating the locations‘ history, locality or identities are commonly included in projects ―in attempts to articulate shared senses of belonging, both to places and between people‖ (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001). Artworks are introduced in public spaces aiming to create a sense of place by ―furnishing places with unique physical identities‖ (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001, p. 13). Public arts advocate senses of place by developing consciousness of identities unique to place (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001). In addition, they not only beautify a space with place making qualities, it has the capacity to interpret the historic, social, cultural and narrative distinctions that differentiate the places and create a true sense of place (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001). These kinds of practices aim to create and strengthen the bonds between people and the specific location (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001).

Public art can influence the development of public space, affecting the design of open spaces, public connections to adjacent features such as streets, parks and open spaces, and related requirements for setbacks and streetscaping (Public Art Policy Development Group, 2009). Artworks can enhance public spaces, making them more attractive, and encourage people to experience and enjoy them (Arts SA, 2009). Therefore public art can increase the use of public spaces.

2.4.1.2. Contributions to the publicness of public space

The publicness of public art is a main debate of this discussion. Public artworks are presented in public space which is accessible to general public and affect their everyday life. On the contrary, art which is placed in private spaces within institutions, like museums and galleries, and it would affect privileged people who have the opportunity and enthusiasm to access and experience (Roberts, 1998; Miles, 1997). People choose to go to 30 such private spaces only to see specific artworks without being disrupted. However, public art in the public space is free to observe, discuss and participate to everyday life. There is no class or social barriers to access public artworks. Public art relates directly to its site and audience. When people walk through, use or overlook the space, public art is readily provided (Roberts, 1998). Therefore, as a common statement and perception, ‗public space‘ as a general medium or location for public art appears as the basic concept for its ‗publicness‘. For this reason Worth (2003) uses the term ‗public spaces art‘ instead of ‗public art‘ to emphasize the medium that artworks are displayed.

As also explained earlier, public art also contributes to public sphere17 and public life by being a subject of discussions, sharing, or being the place of the public sphere. It helps people to think critically about social, political, historical issues. In this way, it creates publicness. Also, by reminding public of their foundations, cultures, and their worth, it plays an integrative function for public which may enhance social cohesion.

2.4.1.3. Contributions to location

Whether a cultural institution or a dynamic public space, public art is framed by its location. Location is substantial, because the ‗frame‘ affects artwork‘s conception and perception. Miles (1997) explains that the experience of art in public collections and in public spaces differs. Art is framed by an enclosed neutral space in a cultural institution; however, the location for public art is open and dynamic in a social setting. Therefore, unlike social institutions, ‗social setting of public art would never successfully be colonized as an art space‘ (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997).

Public art describes works specially made for sites of open public access. The success and failure of much public art to create a public is linked to its location (McCarthy, 2006). The effects of location and environment‘s constituents on artwork influence the meaning of artwork.

Public art generally requires a synergic aesthetical and social impact between artwork and the site that it is located in. Artworks made for installation in a given site, and artworks

17 Through the rise of information technologies, the understanding of ―publicness‖ and ―public sphere‖ has been discussed within a new perspective. The public world penetrates most of the private space through radio, television, computer etc. Even the rituals that once shared with public or with groups, are now shared in isolation; at home. People can watch national or religious feasts, live concerts, and performances from televisions besides sharing with common public. Phillips (1998) gives the example of comparing the act of watching New York‘s annual celebration of New Years Eve in Times Square in television or with millions of people and she tells that the home as a primitive private space has become more and more complex play of social meaning. According to McCarthy the reception of public art ―crosses the gendered boundaries of public and private domains, just as public issues are not bounded by space, and television and electronic media are public in terms of access but consumed in domestic spaces and controlled by corporate interests.‖ (McCarthy, 2006). 31 which are the design of the site itself are described as site-specific art (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 3). Miwon Kwon (2002, p. 1) describes the term ‗site-specific‘18 public art as an artwork created in a specific site, which incorporated the physical conditions of the specific location as integral to the production, presentation, and reception of art. The site with its environment and dynamics may become a significant component of creation, production (even as material) and display. Public artwork has mutual advantages with physical environment. Artwork with its unique and authentic artistic expression, is on display within a dynamic public place where actually gives a specific notion to artwork and artwork reciprocally translate and relocates these qualities on that specific area. Hereby, these qualities have also an impact on the artwork so that it becomes integral to the site (Kwon, 2004). Site-specific artworks consider location and community. They are produced and displayed on that specific site and they become means for artists to contribute to think and practice about urban space, community and site problems. Worth expresses that ―the process of creating better public places is also an important case, like the product‖ (Worth, 2003, p. 2). Because public space is a social setting in which the artists and publics interests may collide. For this reason, a collaborative process between professionals (artists, designers, urban designer planners, architects, sociologists, etc.) and the public is suggested for an effective practice of revealing and creating characteristics of places (Miles 1997; McCarthy, 2006; Kwon, 2002). In this respect, artists can also contribute to creation of meaningful places for the general public alternatively by making just art objects regarding the public‘s opinion, experience and expectation (McCarthy, 2006).

Site-specific public art considers the physical, historical and cultural characteristics of the environment. It can also extract the social and historical dimensions out of places, or it can act as a means to reveal repressed histories and identities (Kwon, 2004).Thus, the artwork has a power to reveal and strengthen the locational identities of the specific area. Recently, site-specific art has been used more often as a tool that supplies distinction of place and uniqueness of locational identity in the promotion and marketing of towns and cities.

Site-specific art also emphasizes the unique character of different places in creating and displaying artworks, although, in some cases, a public artwork may be created in a small edition and sited in more than one place. According to Miles (1997), an accurate description for these kinds of artworks would be ‗site-general‘.

18 Site-specific art explained among many artists and critics with various terms including; site-determined, site- oriented, site-referenced, site-conscious, site-responsive, and site-related. 32

2.4.1.4. Contributions to identity of a place

Creating significant and meaningful public spaces with identity is a sophisticated task. Public art has a power to create identity for public space and city. McCarthy (2006) explains the identity formation for urban spaces through the physical and aesthetical perspective. Public art, as an element in public space, creates a form and physical artefact for urban spaces. It contributes to the aesthetics of urban space through its physical elements, such as forms and materials, and by creating qualities like ―originality, authenticity, and singularity‖ (Kwon, 2002). Likewise, public art can use the historical and cultural contents of the space, or it can set a close relation with the community and produces new elements for the image of the space. In this way, it can generate new identities, or enhances local identity (Miles, 1997; Kwon, 2002; McCarthy, 2006). Thus, public art may influence spatial, cultural and social identities.

Creating new identities or strengthening local identity, public art has recently been used to promote place and city images with the primary aim of achieving economic benefits (McCarthy, 2006). But, this approach creates problems related to identity of urban space, as explained below:

...the extent to which public art in such contexts enhances or reflects local identities is problematic, since it can also reflect hegemonic images of the city as a consequence of place branding priorities, which can lead to homogeneity and erosion of distinctiveness if applied as part of a process of serial replication rather than sensitive adaptation to context. Such issues are particularly important in view of the burgeoning practice of cultural quarter designation and the associated development of public art. (McCarthy, 2006, p. 244)

Therefore, it is important the level and the way of which public art is used for city- marketing or city branding. This issue is also discussed in the following sections under the economic contribution of public art.

2.4.1.5. Contributions to quality of life

Since making significant public places remains as a central theme for quality of life in current urban conditions, public art in public space plays a significant role in the production of a site's distinction and uniqueness (Kwon, 2002). Public art has also a mission of making people feel good about themselves and where they live (Phillips, 1988). It may decrease the boredom and disadvantages leading to vandalism and crime19 (Worth, 2003). Thus, it has a direct effect on ―liveability‖ on urban space (McCarthy, 2006; Miles, 1997). The Federal

19 However in some cases public art even public space may subject to vandalism in the situations of the projects that are not suitable and favorable with the environment and community (Roberts, Art in Public Realm, 1998). 33

Transit Authority of US published a policy in February 1996, explaining the contribution of art and design to the enhancement of quality of life and the creation of liveable communities, as follows:

Good design and art can improve the appearance and safety of a facility, give vibrancy to its public spaces, and make patrons feel welcome. Good design and art will also contribute to the goal that transit facilities help to create livable communities. (FTA, 1996, p. appendix Circular 9400.1A)

According to Miles (1997), creating liveable cities requires both the design of meaningful public spaces and the development of social processes and empowerment of communities. These outcomes can exists with practices ―enables non-professionals to work on an equal basis with members of the professions of the environment and city authorities, in making underlying decisions about development‖ (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 119). For this reason, policies emphasizing social inclusion in creating and displaying public art in public sphere have been particularly emphasised.

Table 2.1. The spatial contribution of public artworks Spatial contributions of public artworks Public art • to physical domain with its physical and visual effect of a public can artwork through the relations of form, scale, colour, texture, use of contribute materials, media or construction • to space through diversity of physical outcomes including; functional, decorative, iconic, integrated, site-specific, interpretive, and temporal-permenant outcomes • to the space and the creation of a sense of place by acting as: 1. a means for creating a meaningful character for a space 2. a means for making the space distinctive 3. a means of rehabilitating the space by adding a ‗spirit of place‘ through the promotion of visual representation 4. landmarks which improves legibility of city by creating meeting places, focal spots and nodes of cities 5. a means for creating connections with the public through its significant features (Thus, people can attach values to the artwork and the environment it exists) • to publicness of public sphere through its sifnificant characteristics including; a. Accessible to the general public b. Affect their everyday life c. is free to observe, discuss and participate to everyday life (no class or social barriers to access public artworks) In this way, it contributes to the public sphere (it helps people to think critically about social, political and historical issues) d. Ġt integrates the members of the society by making them share the same values, meanings about the space.

34

• to its location, as public artworks: 1. create significance in the place where it is located. 2. promote a sense of place by: a. creating and revealing characteristics of the place b. contributing to the meaning of the place c. acting as a means to reveal repressed histories and identities d. operating a power to reveal and strengthen the locational identities of the specific area. *** With such characteristics, public art has been lately used to create distinctive places to promote and market cities.

• to the identity of a place by: 1. creating a form and physical artefact for urban spaces 2. contributing to the aesthetics of urban space through its physical elements (eg., forms and materials) and by creating qualities like ‗originality‘, authenticity and singularity 3. using the historical and cultural contents of the space and enhancing local identities 4. producing new image for the space (so, creating new images for the space and the city) • to the quality of life (QoL) by: 1. making the space distinctive and unique 2. imroving the appearance and safety of a facility 3. giving vibrancy to its public space 4. making the public spaces welcoming for people. Such qualities: • give people feel good about themselves and where they live, • decreases the boredom and disadvantages leading to vandalism and crime 5. leading to the public empowerment, If the artwork production process becomes real through the participatory and inclusive processes

2.4.2. Social Contributions of Public Art

Art reaches its social and public power when it is projected in public sphere; and public space reaches its high aesthetic level and social identity with art. When artwork exists in public space, it becomes a part of public space and community. As such, public space and community become a part of artwork, they interact with each other. Art and design play a valuable role within societies, interpreting cultural symbols and integrating people into the public space. As it is mentioned before in previous chapters, public art has two main roles for public realm (McCarthy, 2006). The first one is the aesthetical role of artwork as decoration means. The second role for public art is to create a social practice of criticism and engagement. McCarthy (2006) defines public realm not only physical environments that are open to public access, but also as a social environment. It is a‗complex fields of public interest‘ (McCarthy, 2006). The creativity and the main character of public art occur between these two main roles. In this section, the contribution of public art in social realm

35 is discussed in four topics including public art‘s contributions to the public sphere of cities, to people‘s experience, public art‘s contributions with collaboration and finally public art‘s contributions to social change.

As Worth (2003, p. 52) explains, ―the non-material meaning of a place and its identity transposes to people, then it achieves some level of spiritual significance‖. Public art, which has an expressive effect occurs in people‘s everyday life, may have spiritual significance. It can promote a sense of community, transform the place and promote a sense of place, enhance vitality and vibrancy in public space, educate and enlighten people and even provoke social change (McCarthy, 2006). The existence of public art in public realm enhances the spiritual experience of a place.

2.4.2.1. Contributions to the public sphere of cities

Public art with its aesthetical effect and also stimulates sensual abilities. If this kind of stimulation harmonizes with physical presence, the perception/sensation makes people not to run away, frighten or disturbed but to open out towards it (Erzen, Kent Estetiği ve Ankara için bir Manifesto, 2009).

According to Phillips (1988), public art derives its ‗publicness‘ not from its location, but from the nature of its engagement with divergent intersections of personal interests, collective values, social issues, political events and wider cultural patterns that define general public life. Artworks in public realm are not defined as ‗public‘ only because of their accessiblity to the public in all circumstances, but also because of their reception by the public (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997).

Art that is successful in public settings express the values of a community… Public sculpture, like all sculpture, is the product of the imagination of a sculptor. But sculpture in public setting also must take account of the community around it, its social issues, its history, and its symbols. Working with a community gives the sculptor a starting point and a framework and is a way to make a private vision into public art. (Nettleship, 1989, p. 172)

As a major strategy, art, design and urban planning has started to include public, local people in the definition, design, characterization and even production of public space and its constituents (Worth, 2003). It is realized that the process of creating significant public places needs to be realized equally as important as the outcome (Worth, 2003). Thus, the public (including mainly local people) has started to be involved in the development of the art projects, as well as in the creation of artworks in public places which they live. Kwon (2002) states that, with the public involvement, a dialogue and intercourse between artists, public and the city can be created within the creation of an artwork, and artists can create projects dealing with conditions in the city, its public space, architecture, urban planning,

36 its history and the social structure. Public involvement in public art projects can reveal the unique characteristics of a community, society and locality.

The preferences and priorities expressed by the community can be given a visible presence. It may not be in the form they anticipate, but through interchange and discussion, it can become something that they embrace as their own. When art / design is founded on the experience and knowledge of a particular community, the results can project its inherent qualities, as well as the individual and collective agendas present. (Worth, 2003, p. 2)

The practices of public artworks have evolved and developed particularly in contemporary artworks. Public artworks which strive to arose and capture the social conscience of a passive public, have not only included new materials, technologies and techniques, but also explored new relations between public art and the public. It is realized that public art has a valid place in the art and community dialectic. The effect of art on public and effect of public on artworks has recently become a fundamental issue on creating artworks. Social practices of public artworks occurred as a technique aiming to use the accessibility character of public spaces to reach wide range of people20 (local people, users, visitors), and include them by participating with their intelligence, identity, experiences, advices and even sometimes productions (or work of art) in fabrication of public artworks.

In public art literature, social practices of public artworks created by public origin are named as ‗Participatory Public Art‘, ‗Community Public Art‘, ‗Community-Specific Public Art‘ and ‗Audience-Specific‘21. Gablik‘s (1998) proposal for participatory art is concerned with social and ecological healing with public art involving user-centred strategies for urban planning and design. She (1998) argues that a new paradigm of an engaged, participatory and socially relevant art is emerging which is ―a socially relevant kind of art—not precisely in the sense that is being talked about in the art world now of ‗political correctness‘ and social critique, but rather a kind of art that celebrates and participates robustly in the life-world‖ (Gablik, 1998). Community public art also uses the potential participation of citizens to express their personal experiences, diversity, commonality, goals, and values in the creation process of public artwork, encourages residents and artists to work collaboratively. This community-based design method of art production promotes community collaboration and provides an opportunity for local residents to creatively express the unique aspects of their neighbourhoods. Community art promotes art for social change and involves some empowerment of the community members who come together to create with artists.

20 People sharing some sense of communal identity mainly based on the experiences of utilization of the same location , geographical proximity , also ethnicity, gender, political attachment, religious beliefs, social and economic classes, etc., which makes them live and experience that specific location 21‗Community Public Art‘ is also known as ‗dialogical art‘, ‗community-engaged‘ or ‗community-based art‘. 37

These kinds of involvement gives opportunity for communities to express themselves, and artists started to be concerned ―to make visible the voice of groups who then lacks access to broadcast‖ (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 8). These kind of socio-centric public artworks success depends on the projects issue, location of the artworks, artist‘s skills, perspective, perception and interpretation of community dialogues. In social practices of public art, the concept of the public (including collective interaction and communication) has been brought into the production process of public art. Artists, who provide the communication, collaboration and interpretation, work as catalyst between public (community, citizens) and client (public and private). For instance, ‗Public Works‘ group including artists and architects, consult and collaborate with the public from start to finish in their projects, treating the public as co-producers and treating themselves as facilitators22. Briefly put, socio-centric public artworks effect the environment positively and participatory process provides users an opportunity to appropriate the public space they use.

McCarthy (2006, p. 248) claims that the flexibility within the roles of artists involved is needed to create an innovative and diverse approach and also this flexibility may result in homogeneity in contribution and ―lack of concern for the needs of divergent communities‖. Involvement of public in art projects would create some benefits like public education (Arts SA; Worth, 2003; Miles, 1997), as well as education for artists about the locality and community (Worth, 2003), increased community participation, engagement and a sense of belonging of local people, opportunities for creative and practical skills development, and increased social capital (Arts SA, 2009). The process of involvement would promote cultural diversity, and encourage integration of marginalized groups with community and public spaces, particularly where such groups participate in the process of creation of art (McCarthy, 2006).

Where ‗vandalism‘ is created as a reaction to perceiving a lack of ownership in public spaces, this process is also a means for building a sense of custodianship in people which would create an acceptance of shared responsibility (Worth, 2003) and participation in creation of environment would create appropriation by its local people. So, integration of individuals with community, public spaces and the city, can affect as improved social cohesion and reduced crime (Worth, 2003). In addition, McCarthy (2006) explains that it is

22 Public Works Group explains their vision as follows: ―All public works projects address the question how the public realm is shaped by its various users and how existing dynamics can inform further proposals. Our focus is the production and extension of a particular public space through participation and collaborations. Projects span across different scales and address the relation between the informal and formal aspects of a site‖ (Public Works, n.d.). 38 often assumed that public art should involve maximum engagement with local communities because it can develop a sense of community and self-esteem.

To conclude, public art has a power to create engagement and interaction with individuals and community. This engagement and interaction is not exactly a direct verbal communication. Works of public art in public space engage people in their everyday lives and provide an opportunity for dialogue and social interaction that is at the heart of a vibrant city.Interaction occurs in any situation in which individuals act in awareness of others and they continually adjust their behaviours to the expectations and possible responses of others. Public art‘s role can be an ‗affective‘ model. It has a power to excite passions as an artwork, increase awareness of their physical environment and raise their responsiveness to themselves, their community, the places they live and their city.

2.4.2.2. Contributions to people’s experience

Public art can reach the large masses and increase the public‘s understanding of and access to art. Public art occurs in public space aiming to surge the power of art and by its existence art creates significance in public space by attracting attention, educating and motivating people to gather around, discuss about, and debate.

According to Crowther, the main role of art is activating the imagination of people; imagination creates empathic relations among people, makes them to understand each other more deeply, provides more open perception -these occur in environments of art and aesthetic (Erzen, 2009).

The communicational meaning of public space is essential for urban life. Artwork as a powerful element in public space contacts with a wide range of people on their daily time intervals and it creates a communication context through its physical, aesthetical, social and spiritual meaning. Public art becomes a part of public, and public can become a part of artwork by integrating, discussing, using and living the environment instead of just passing or looking. Artworks help people to use their imagination and educate public spiritually (Erzen, 2009). That is why public art requires ―a responsibility for the relation between artistic creativity, and goals or interests that inform public space‖ (Brandao, 2003).

Artists as creator of artworks do not ―have privileged vision but have a practiced eye and the ability to speak in a rich variety of languages‖, including visual, conceptual, emotional, sensual, verbal, figurative, and rational (Hein, 1996, p. 6). Thus, their insightful expressions ignite public attention and response (Hein, 1996). Therefore, the use of artwork in public spaces is an important feature which meets the aesthetic requirements of people, increasing

39 their motivation, inspiration and creative abilities. Public art can also encourage creativity and innovation in public realm (McCarthy, 2006).

Public art put across the artworks as an active space constituent. It can increase the aesthetics of environment and the environment that is aesthetically of high quality motivates the local people and public. It also seeks to respond to the needs of the users. It can enrich people experience of art, design and understanding of environment, as explained below:

The invisible qualities of a place can be given a tangible reference through art and design, enriching people‟s experience. In this way the spiritual and cultural value of a place is increased. By adding to social health and public wealth, public places art and design contribute to the political stability of society. (Worth, 2003, p. 2)

Thus, including art and design in public places, the spiritual and cultural value of a place can be increased (Worth, 2003). In addition to the aesthetical function, the emotional and mental effects of artworks that can be shared among public, have significant outcomes in physical domain. Public art can engage with the viewer and can provoke people to think, perceive and interpret. The invisible qualities of a place can be given a substantial reference through art and design which can enrich people‘s experience. It has a power to be transformative in pointing the way for new and innovative directions for the area (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997).

As art empowers the imagination, it improves the cognitive abilities, self-conscious of individuals which make them to understand environment, culture, history more deeply. This awareness and consciousness makes people to give meaning to what they see in metaphors, symbols in environment that would provide more wealthy relations with the environment (Erzen, Kent Estetiği ve Ankara için bir Manifesto, 2009, p. 4).

Public art which affects cities‘ aesthetics has meaningfulness beyond its effects on urban beauty. ―When art is encountered in public spaces ... it produces a co-incidence of possible readings of art, city form, and patterns of socialization, which may collide.‖ (Miles, 1997, p. 16). Public art, with its wide diversity is a social and physical practice of urban landscape which has a significant place in individual‘s everyday experience. While the social practice directly affects public, physical practice affects both environment and public. Lynch (1992) in Image of the City explains that individuals as observers with great adaptability and in the light of their own purposes, select, organize, and endow with meanings of what they see. Public art fosters an environment that promotes creativity, the pursuit of excellence in cultural experiences and public access to those experiences (Public Art Policy Development

40

Group, 2009). So, the meaningful public art experience in public space affects people‘s vision on environment, society, and life.

2.4.2.3. Contributions with collaboration

The process of building better public places is as important as the outcome. Artworks in public realm affect both professional actors which deal with space, public, environment and the city. These actors may belong to different kind of professions, such as artists, planners, urban designers, sociologists working in governmental, non-governmental or private agencies, while non-professional actors include people who live, work or visit the place. First, the collaboration between professionals dealing with public realm is important for the realization process of artworks. Because each profession has its own professional knowledge that can be shared with others in order to make the artwork more effective. Second, the collaboration between professionals and non-professionals (public) who actually experience the space everyday is another important process that creates effective results in public spaces.

The collaboration among these actors related to specific localities from the early stages of planning and design, has become a strategy to create understanding and shared ownership which would ensure a valued life for the project (Miles, 1997; Worth, 2003). Such collaborations may also widen the perspectives of professionals, by strengthening the knowledge of artists‘ and non-artists‘ existing vision of space and society and strengthening their professions as revolving around individualism, innovation, the interiority of the studio and also public motivation (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997). Worth (2003, p. 49) calls this strengthening of knowledge a ‗two-way learning process‘ between designers which may include artists, architects, urban designers, planners, legal actors and user actors. The user actors and legal actors with different preferences that may generally collide can educate designers (artists and other professionals) about their preferences and priorities and designers inform the actors about the potential aspirations for the project, as explained below:

“The goals and intentions for the project can be established in this way. It includes the exchange of information and perceptions specific to the space, shared analyses of the needs and desires, and some discussion of potential visions. The process provides a basis for raising appreciation of the roles for government, urban design and art in society. It brings together desires, ideas and realities, towards building public places that are better utilized by more people.” (Worth, 2003, p. 2)

Art can be discussed as a decoration within city, but another phenomenon is its social process of criticism and engagement with citizens. People in urban life walk near it, look,

41 explore another detail every day. Public art is a tool creates significance in public spaces through art. Cultural significance can be achieved in a place when the artwork, design or performance is created to realize a connection with a particular community, citizens or activity. Relationship with community through public artwork can be achieved by involving the audience and local people in the artwork, reflecting local and cultural context (culture, history, local traditions, local people, and local productions) through the artwork, creating unique connections between works of art and their environments, and using local materials and imagery. The public place with an artwork also becomes significant for a culture of its own, as artworks can influence or shape cultural and local identities. When citizens identify and interact with the places, it means the place has significance.

2.4.2.4. Contributions to social change

Public space presents a substantial platform for artists who seek to communicate with variety of populace by their artworks. Artists can propose their ideas insights into artworks through their communication, research and expression. The ideas presented in artworks can enlighten public‘s cultural experience and also social awareness. Artworks may have objectives of encouraging the audience to understand and discuss social issues, challenging people‘s thoughts and beliefs, evoking strong emotional responses, disturbing preconceptions about systems that govern public life, and raising awareness of public focusing on social, political, economic problems (Peto, 1992, p. 32; cited in Hall & Robertson, 2001). Thus, public art for some artists can be a means for promoting positive social change or be an influential agent in the purpose of change, revealing fundamental social contradictions (Hall & Robertson, 2001).

Public art as a provocative element for social change can manifests itself with different methods and different objectives23. In order to raise awareness, public artworks can be integrated with specific oppositional projects, protests events and performances which can be sanctioned or unsanctioned (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001). It can encourage the audience to understand and respect various community members and groups. For instance, as a part of a-ape project in Liverpool some facts on urban life were written on the walls as a part of Liverpool Biennial and European Culture Capital 2008 with the aim of encouraging people to think about their cities and citizens daily contradictions.

23For instance, public artworks with its intention of opposition to a range of social issues like poverty, social constraints, wars, hostility, discrimination, homelessness (Hall and Robertson, 2001), domestic violence (Phillips, 1999), negative impacts of urban development (Darke, 1995; cited in Hall and Robertson, 2001). 42

Figure 14. a-ape project, Liverpool24. Source: Personal Archive

Furthermore, public art can be used to re-create meanings on space or ―subvert the dominant meanings of space or building‖, and it can attract public‘s attention and make them to question general assumptions on urban issues (Hall & Robertson, 2001, p. 17).

As a result, the conspicuousness and objectives of artwork or performance can raise awareness of public on the social issues which can be taken as a sign of its success. Hall and Robertson (2001) claim that the success of provocative public art projects ―is often assumed and subsequently justified on the grounds of inappropriate criteria that obscure a lack of empirical evidence. Advocates are typically guarded on this issue and tend to cite the efficacy of symbolism, for example, in justification of their claims‖ (Hall & Robertson, 2001, p. 18).

Public artworks have the power to affect its audience‘s perspective through its objectives. Patricia Phillips describes the creative possibilities of public art as society changes and transforms itself:

Public art is about the free field – the play – of creative vision. The point is not just to produce another thing for people to step back and admire, but to create an opportunity – a situation – that enables viewers to look back at the world with renewed perspectives and clear angles of vision. This image embraces the instrumentality, intimacy and criticality of public art. Public life cannot be decreed, but has to be constantly reinvented. (Philips, 1995 cited in Roberts, 1998)

Public art promotes development in the city and demonstrates that a city is proud, interesting and informed. To sum up, artworks in public sphere can increase individual awareness and promote expression within the community through public debate and discussion. Public artworks have educative purposes which may affect alternation in

24 “The writing on the wall is an urban art project in connection with the Liverpool Biennial and European Culture Capital 2008. The responses to the questions posted on this website during the year will be published in a newspaper supplement at the end of the year to give a clearer picture of how people feel about living in Liverpool.” (a-ape, 2008) 43 society, socio cultural evolution and even promote social change positively. However social change is not an immediate and demonstrable process, it needs a progression and reinforcement.

Table 2.2. Social contributions of public art Social contributions of public art Public art can • to the public sphere by: contribute 1. providing the public involvement in the public art projects (by giving the opportunities to citizens to express their personal experiences, diversity, commonality, goals and values in the creation of public artworks, by encouraging residents and artists to work collaboratively). 2. promoting community collaboration and empowerment 3. providing opportunities for public education, as well as opportunities for the education of artists about the locality and community 4. increasing community engagement and creation of a sense of belonging of local people. 5. promoting cultural diversity and encouraging integration of marginalized groups with community and public spaces 6. improving social cohesion and reducing crime 7. helping develop a sense of community and self-esteem • to people’s experience by: 1. enriching people‘s experience of art, design and understanding of environment. • to the public sphere through collaboration by: 1. creating understanding and shared ownership among the actors involved in the production process of public art 2. widening the perspective of professionals.

• to social change by: 1. increasing individual awareness and promoting expression within the community through public debate and discussion

2.4.3. Political and Ideological Contribution of Public Art

Throughout history, sanctioned by the authority and supported public art has often been used for political scopes, essentially by promoting social and political ideologies or to contest them. The aim and meaning of artwork reflects the designer‘s and the establishment‘s (who give the legal permission and also funding) perspective in sanctioned circumstances of production.

Sanctioned public art can also be examined as a guide of underlying power currents. It has been used to promote the ideas of the hegemonic economic or political power groups. Foremost monuments, for example, have been used by power groups as a tool to legitimate the roots of their power by representing the agents of power group or state (such as, 44 politicians, war heroes, monarchs, generals, etc.). Or, imitating a specific past event or action (usually by showing the power, diplomacy and victory) generally represents the history of those who hold power. These artworks expresses a closed history which confirm the structures of power, taking the time of history as a static as well as powerful representation and displaying it out in a dynamic environment. These works as worthy of public attention are situated in the most common places accessible to the public, where it can penetrate people‘s everyday life. So, it imposes a power to define and make visible the values of public realm. This political objective of public art shows the hegemonic action of power groups. Miles (Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 59) states that ―monuments stand in a complex relation to time, state a past or its imitation, but are erected to impress contemporary publics with the relation to history of those who hold power and the durability of that relation expressed in stone or bronze‖. Throughout history, monuments are produced within ―a dominant framework of values, as elements in the construction of a national history‖ (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 57). Likewise, modern buildings ―contribute to a national cultural identity; they suppose at least a partial consensus of values, without which their narrative could not be recognized‖ (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 57).

Public art, as a tool to impose political purposes, uses two adverse realities: aesthetics and violence. Mitchell (The Violence of Public Art: "Do the Right Thing", 1990, p. 886) states that ―From Ozymandias to Caesar to Napoleon to Hitler, public art has served as a kind monumentalizing of violence and never more powerfully then when it presents the conqueror as a man of peace, imposing a Napoleonic code … on the world‖. In the 19th century and the early 20th century, the rising power of nation-state and its political leadership, effected the production of public art. The scope of public art production basically turned into showing the power of nation-state, the battles and victories that presents the foundation of nation states, heroes of the nation including specific heroes of the nations, middle-class and ordinary people who fight for, produce for, work for his/her country. The production of public art required to legitimize the powers of the nation states and power groups as a unifying authority. The images of war, violence, power, religion lying beneath creation of states are used in artworks to create a national memory. In addition to main public spaces of cities (public squares, boulevards and parks), public institutions which produce and constitute nations welfare, such as the places for government, education, health, transportation, communication buildings and locations, became the critical places for public art. For instance, in Ankara public art was used as was a part of the planning process an a tool to build new capital city of the new Nation State

45 after the proclamation of the Republic. These artworks and figures are designed mainly to commemorate the War of Independence, the victories and the Atatürk‘s reforms.

Miles (Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, pp. 67-68) claims that the development of the 19th-century monuments in the public realm, within the aims of public education and reformation programmes undertaken by state, aimed to create a national history. Beech (2005) explains this kind of programme exemplifying Lenin‘s policy for monuments as follows:

Lenin praised the bourgeoisie for working this out and ordered all the public statues to be torn down and replaced with monumental sculptures of the heroes of the revolution. … In those early years of the Russian revolution, the social function of public art was to represent the working class as the hegemonic class, to foster historic behaviour. The social function of public art under capitalism, however, is to present the bourgeoisie as the universal class (not only with sculptures of its guardians and champions, but also with representations of its liberalism, modernity and technology). (Beech, 2005)

As a result of this political process, a specific history is persuaded and national memory is constructed by power group (whom seems to inherit history) through public artworks by showing, educating and adopting the basis of power group images in public places. This process is actually discussed as an aspect of ‗hegemony‘ that can be explained as ―a concept that helps to explain, on the one hand, how state apparatuses, or political society - supported by and supporting a specific economic group- can coerce, via its institutions of law, police, army and prisons, the various strata of society into consenting to the status quo‖ (Holub, 1992, p.6, cited in Miles, 1997, p. 66). As such, Gramsci explains the process of maintaining control not just through political and economic force, but also ideologically through hegemonic culture in which the values of power group became the common sense values of all. He denominates this process as ―cultural hegemony‖ which helped to maintain the status quo of the power group rather than revolting for it. The influence of public artworks comes out as a device of visual language to manufacture of a national identity and preserve the social order. Miles (Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 57) explains that the majority in society is persuaded by public art to accept, public art becomes ―a device of social control less brutish and costly than armed force‖.

Hegemonic power group (politic, economic and civil society who hold the power) and its institutions have been used public art as a contribution to the production of meaning and values which actually produce, direct and maintain the general perceptive of society. Thus, public art throughout history has been used as a propaganda object, as elements in the construction of a legitimate memory and national history, which actually used to sublime

46 the power and maintain the status quo of the power group and hegemony. This approach to public art can be clearly seen in Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in China and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.

Sanctioned public art has not just been an authoritative, overbearing act throughout history, but it has also occurred as a grassroots movement or civil commotion. Murals which have been a communication tool for communities showing images of everyday life of civilizations including wars, victories, human sacrifices, celebrations, musicians, and clothing of societies for thousands of years, have became a platform for artists to express themselves socially and politically. For instance, The Mexican Mural movement was born after a prolonged civil war and Mexican people‘s revolution. This movement represents one of the most powerful and significant achievements in public art during the 20thcentury. Mexican revolution actually constitutes the roots of Mexican Mural movement, artists were sensitive to the impact of social and political conditions in Mexico and depicted modern imagery to explore issues of Mexican national identity, which featured stylized representations of the working classes and indigenous cultures and espoused revolutionary ideals. Beginning in the 1920s and continuing to the 1950s, artists were commissioned by the local government to cover the walls (concrete surfaces or on the façades) of public buildings, official institutions, such as Mexico‘s schools, ministerial buildings, churches and museums. The three most prominent artists of the movement, José Orozco, Diego Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros, used public art as a visual dialogue with their native people. This style was thought of as a teaching method within an educational and political program, and it was intentionally expressed in public places where all people could have access to it regardless of race and social class. Mexican Mural movement, as politically committed public art, has influenced many other artists all over the world and such public arts were produced in many cities, such as Leger‘s murals of 1937 in Paris and the Cable Street Mural in East London (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 8). This variety of examples also shows the interpretive role of public artworks which intend to describe, educate and comment on issues, events or situations that public experience (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 8).

47

Figure 15.Cable Street Mural in East London Source: (stgite, n.d.)

Public artworks are means of revealing existing hegemonic power‘s ideals and also a tool to remove previous or opponent ideals. That‘s why throughout the history as the regimes change, the public artworks which reveal the previous hegemonic power destroy or removed. Like after the disintegration of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics25 and the overthrow of the communist regimes, most of the sculptures and monuments of communist leaders (mainly Stalin‘s sculptures) are removed from cities. Taliban (Afghanistan based Ġslamic group) in 2001, totally destroyed oldest Buddha statue which is listed as World Cultural Heritage (Yurt Medya, 2011). In 2003, a statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been knocked off by pulling ropes while on the one hand beaten with slippers (Yurt Medya, 2011).

Figure 16. Removal of Stalin‘s sculpture in Georgia in 2010, Saddam Huseyin‘s sculpture in Iraq in 2003 and Buddha statue before and after its destruction in 2001 Source: (Yurt Medya, 2011)

Contemporary sanctioned public art is still a major area of state patronage (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 3). However the creation, display and objectives do not noticeably reflect the ideologies of governments. The ideologies behind presenting public art are concealed in the matters of style and the bureaucracies of arts management (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997, p. 3). For instance, it can be legalised as in the example of Percent for Art policy as a state control system. Such a state approach to public art accepts the

25 It is has to be mentioned that in Moscow (and some other cities of Russia) these sculptures are buried in the ground in order to protect them from vandalism and today most of the sculptures which were removed in Moscow are revealed and exhibiting in their locations as a part of city‘s history. 48 contradictions between the responsibility of the public sector in a liberal society and the non-accountability of some developers to interest other than those of global finance (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997).

The visual language and materials used to design public art in modern period seem diverse compared to the 19th century. However, the underlying intentions may still have similarities: a mediation of history from the position of power is embodied in the public art, whilst the commissioning of public art which is generally dependent of state support, is a device of social control with confirmative given values or tastes. Worth (2003) explains the clients for public spaces include primary local governments and in the case of important projects may also include governments. These clients have two perspectives, characterized by whether they are the bureaucrats, keeping the system running, or the politicians, answering to their constituency. As the legal owners of public places, carrying the responsibility for public expenditure on maintenance and liability, they are faced with potential internal dilemmas, individually and collectively. As a strategy for government to address a variety of economic, social and political needs, art and design in public places has considerable advantages including low costs (compared to other public works projects) and high profile for governmental unit. The costs are low compared to other public works projects. In most cases, the results are highly visible, and when they ‗fail‘ to serve the commissioner‘s intended purpose, it is not fatal for the government (Worth, 2003, p. 3).

Table 2.3. Political and ideological contribution of public art Political and ideological contributions of public art Public art can • to promote social and political ideologies or to contest them. contribute • to promote the ideas of hegemonic economic or political power groups (either representing the agents of power groups or state, such as politicians, war heroes, monarchs, generals, etc., or imitating a specific past events or action, such as victory). • to impose a power to define and make visible the values of public realm.

• to create a national memory and preserve the social order (to maintain control not just through political and economic force, but also ideologically through hegemonic culture in which the values of power group became the common sense values of all). • to present ideas of grassroots movement or civil commotion.

2.4.4. Economical Contributions of Public Art

When public space and public art seem to appear spontaneously, it is usually because some savvy or enlightened developer has discovered that beauty can be profitable, and that offer something to the community (even if no one really 49

understands the nature of the gift) can enhance corporate image. In the same way that “good fences makes good neighbour” the clear delineation of a public space has been packaged as a neighbourly gesture, with public art the fence identifies boundaries. (Phillips, 1988, p. 97)

As stated above, public art has also been used for economic purposes. The following sections explain several ways of pursuing these purposes.As public art provides a distinctive significance that can attract new residents and businesses, property values may increase, and the art can become a destination draw for visitors who will contribute to the local economy in its shops, cafes and businesses (Public Art Policy Development Group, 2009).

2.4.4.1. Contributions to profit-motivated market objectives

Public space is subject to public art with its physical attitude for people and city, and its dynamic relations including personal and collective interests, social values, political, cultural and economic relations. Even if public space seems indifferent to property relations because of its dispossessed situation, it is subject to development with its economic value in relation with property market. In contemporary period, apart from its spatial and social significance, public space has served a main incentive not to be public but to satisfy far more profit-motivated objectives which are associated with the agendas of developers and city officials who have commissioned artworks in public spaces (Phillips, 1988).Public art‘s economic functions do not have a direct cause, but can affect different branches of functions which would have an economic outcome. For private development, the benefits of public art may include increased property values, enhanced marketing of the units or floor space and enhanced aesthetics of the development leading to an improved public image for the developer (Public Art Policy Development Group, 2009).Public art makes public space and cities to be distinguished among others and public art has started to be considereds as a component of public space projects, urban design and urban regeneration projects. After the recognition of the effect of public art on economical development in the 1980s, there occurred a change of perception from ―art is good for you‖ to ―art is good for business‖ in the ethos for government funding (Roberts, 1998).The primary motivation for the provision of public art became financial, because developers can only suggest a projects of environmental impact which have commercial incentive (Roberts, 1998).

Public art is used as a means of profit-motivated market objectives for different institutions and also, public art became a strategy for government to address a variety of economic, social and political needs due to the significant advantages of art and design in public places (Worth, 2003). Because governments have realized that public art could be provided

50 with low costs –compared to other public space projects-, and it could provide highly visible results, and low risks. Furthermore, in most cases, when public art cannot succeed to serve intended purposes, it generally would not be fatal for the government.

2.4.4.2. Contributions to revitalising property market

The development of property market in specific area lies on different characteristics of the place and buildings. The distinctiveness, character and identity of the place which affects the value and quality, can be considered as a concern of choice which would influence the property market. Public art, as a beautifying means for public spaces, affects its environment with its unique and attractive meaning. It improves image of the environment, it can make the public space or a building distinctive. Roberts (1998) states that fund holders and investors perceive public art as unique tool which would add beauty and identity to a development and by this means give and edge in terms of the property market. Thus, public art has started to be acknowledged as a tool which would increase land values of the development by increasing the distinctiveness of the place. Although there is no evidence of public art by itself would be a deciding factor in choice of property (compare to the rental cost, location, quality and size of the building which are the main concerns on choice), the provision of public art distinguishes buildings and could create commercial benefits to the property market in terms of facilitating letting and thereby reducing risk (Roberts, 1998). Therefore, public art is used as tool that acts like a catalyst for revitalising property market.

A public artwork in Sheffield created in 2004 by an art collective, called ―Freee‖26,is illustrative in terms of showing the commercial benefit which public art may provide. In this example, ‗the economic function of public art is to increase the value of private property‘. This objective has been significantly used and promoted in the economic regeneration of post industrial cities.The artwork located on a billboard of a building, even revealing itself as the one it criticizes. Private property is the root of capitalism above all organizations of society and all economic functions in the city. This work expresses the enhancement effect of public art on private property in economic base.

The characteristics of the space also effect the investments that would occur in the environment. Distinctive image of the environment effects property market in terms of attracting investments to the environment. Public art as a feature which can enhance the image of the place has a power to attract investment. McCarthy (2006) claims that public

26‗Freee‘ is an art collective that tries to reveal the pervasive corporate presence in daily lives by locating irritating slogans, comments to express the dilemmas in public spaces. 51 art‘s primary aim is related with the improvement of the public realm with the attraction of private funding for development.

2.4.4.3. Contributions to consumption in new commercial, cultural and office developments

Public spaces have been the ordinary places to include provision for art in urban development process. However, the development of commerce and entertainment find new paths in cities. New commercial developments which are inward-facing, tightly-controlled, with semi private places for shopping and entertainment emerged in the post-industrial cities. This new approach of development created important impacts on city and communities, given rise of the collapse of city centers and public spaces, while making these new commercial developments new gathering places for public.

The economic contribution of art to such commercial developments has also been realized by investors and developers. As art attracts attention, new areas of commercial developments –such as chain of supermarkets, shopping malls- have started to provide public art (Roberts, 1998). Shopping malls frequently embrace sculptures and include performances like live music, dancing performances. Generally, these new commercial areas have commissioned artworks to attract high-income clients and therefore to attract consumption. In Ankara, new shopping malls have also started to use public artworks to attract potential consumers. For instance, in a shopping mall called Gordion, a public art exhibition of the fish figures painted in different ways was used to decorate the corridor in the first a year after its opening. This exhibition actually resembles the Cow Prade exhibitions around the world. Kentpark and Cepa Shopping Centers, on the other hand, organizes public piano recital on specific days of the week and Panora and Kentpark shopping Centers organizes Semazen shows (whirling derwish) durin Ramadan periods. The International Street Festival27 in Ankara couldn‘t find support from municipalities therefore they realized ‗street‘ festival in different shopping malls like Acity and Gordion in 2011 (Solfasol, 2011).

27 The street festival, in which street artists from Croatia, Latvia, Italy, Poland, Spain and Turkey attended, was funded by the European Union Education and Youth Programs Center of State Planning Organization under the youth program (Cumhuriyet, 2011). 52

Figure 17. Example from fish exhibition in Gordion and public piano recital in Cepa Source: Image retrived from (http://www.perakende.tv/images/1766351709.jpg) and personal archive

It is possible to see the design of new shopping malls even with an art based vision. Likewise, public art has also become an important part of both publicly and privately funded flagship developments such as convention centres and office developments (Hall & Robertson, Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates, 2001).

2.4.4.4. Contributions to visitors and local spending

Roberts (2002) claims that the motivation for practices of nineteenth-century urbanism has been eroded as cities become centres for consumption rather than production. The manufacturing industry abandoned the city centres as the main production services and replaced its place with service sectors. Tourism and hospitality industry became important industries and cultural tourism forms an essential part of any local economic development.

In this new urbanscape, it is realized that utilizing artworks in public space increases public use of the space and environment (Roberts, 2002). It is realized that, public art has the ability to boost economic development and tourism by making destinations for visitors and local residents (Public Art Policy Development Group, 2009). As artwork in public space attracts more visitors to the location, it generates local spending and also generates revenue (Annabel Jackson Associates, 2007).

Annabel Jackson Associates (2007) makes a survey on the outcomes of the TERN Project, which is a famous project in England, including a set of unique artworks situated along the promenade area in Morecambe, Lancashire. They present the economical benefits of the resort as follows:

There is evidence that the TERN project has significantly increased visits to Morecambe, and has managed to attract new market segments to the resort. The resort now attracts 50% to 100% more visitors than was the case prior to the start of the wider resort regeneration. The TERN project itself is directly responsible for an additional estimated 11,000 visitor nights and 27,000 day visits to Morecambe per year. These visits collectively generate over £800,000 worth of revenue

53

annually.” (NWTC Research Services, 2004)... England‟s Northwest Research Service (2006) found that 17% of visitors visited the site because of the installation, with an average spend per visitor of £7.68 and 2,937 visitors per day, which gave an estimated annual spend of £658,314. (Annabel Jackson Associates, 2007, p. 8)

It is obvious that major public art activities, festivals or performances sited in challenging public spaces attracts people and creates economic benefits. The ―Animals on Parade‖ project, for example, is a famous public art event and a well-known case of an economic contribution of the arts for cities. As a part of this project ―Cow Parade‖ events have been staged in over 50 cities worldwide since 1999 till 2007 including Chicago (1999), New York City (2000), and Istanbul (2007). It is estimated that over 100 million people around the world have seen one of the famous cows; over 5,000 artists worldwide have participated in and over $20 million have been raised through worldwide charitable organizations through the auction of the cows, which take place at the conclusion of each event (Cow Parade, n.d.). And, it also had economical benefits for city governments during the ―Cows on Parade‖. During the three-month exhibition in Chicago, an extra 2 million tourists visited the city and spent 500 million dollars for on hotels, food, and sightseeing (Cow Parade, n.d.). It was reported that the stores gain profits and other retail shops, restaurants, and hotels reported a 20% increase in sales. The exhibit in New York increased the tourist population by 3-4 million people during the exhibition period, creating an additional 1 billion dollars in retail income and over 1 million dollars of income in charity auctions (Cow Parade, n.d.).

Figure 18. The crowd for the Cow Parade Austin in 2011 Source: (Cow Parade, n.d.)

2.4.4.5. Contributions to employment

Public art projects with sponsorships can create employment and professional development opportunities for artists, fabricators and associated professionals (Arts SA, 2009). Furthermore, by adding value to the built environment and attracting the sponsorship, public art can foster civic pride, followed by the local artists.

54

Public art in places, by attracting people and increasing local spending, indirectly affects the employment dynamics of the environment. The practices with wider aims can create employment opportunities and can create additional financial support for the local people in the settlement.

2.4.4.6. Contributions to city image and branding

Public art is often created for public spaces in order to promote place image, city image and to enhance local identity, through its distinctive aesthetical and social feature. Fund holders and investors have realized the power of public art as adding identity to development which actually gives an edge in terms of the market, over neighbouring similar developments (Roberts, 1998).

Kwon (2002) explains the fundamental cultural shift in architecture, urban design and urban planning referring to the appropriation of public art (basing on site-specific public art) for the evaluation of urban identities. The primary media was formerly based on expressing a monolith planning vision of a city which is a long-term dream including short-term achievements for components of and whole of a city. According to Kwon (2002), the shift of primary media for expressing a vision of the city, is displaced by other media which is more intimate with marketing and advertising purposes. This shift comes forward in the objectives of projects and practices in urban space which expresses the aim to make contributions to urban economy and take a place in the global market structure.

Özsoy and Bayram (2007) expresses that culture and art industries in planning make important contributions to the urban economy which would fire up the competition between the cities globally. Public art, as a form of a planning gain used as a mean in urban regeneration projects, became a part of wider promotional elements of city activity. According to McCarthy (2006), promoting public art has become an essential strategy for city governments as a result of competition between cities globally for investment. Public art in the promotion of city image expresses itself in global market like a mascot or badge like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Statue of Liberty in New York or Mannaken Piss in Brussels (Roberts, 2002).

55

Figure 19. Eiffel Tower and Mannaken Piss Sculpture became a landmark and symbol of Paris and Brussels inspite the contrast in their size. Source: Personal Archive and (Wikipedia - Manneken Pis, 2011)

Artwork can supply distinction of place, uniqueness of locational identity, and attractive quality of the place which would be effective elements in the promotion of places and cities within the competitive restructuring of the global economic hierarchy. Thus, art remains inevitably attached to a process that renders particularity and identity of various cities as a matter of product differentiation (Kwon, 2002).

Table 2.4. Economic contribution of public art Economic contributions of public art Public art can • to profit-motivated market objectives contribute • to the revitalisation of property market by; giving distinctiveness, character and identity of the place, by increasing the attractiveness of the environment, and thereby attracting new investment to the urban space

• to promote consumption for the new commercial developments • to create employment and professional development opportunities for artists and other associated professionals • to city-imaging and branding of the city

56

CHAPTER 3

PUBLIC ART POLICY IN ANKARA

Public art is usually installed in public spaces with the authorization and collaboration of the governmental authorities that administers the space for the sake of public. Some governments actively encourage the creation of public art by implementing a public art policy. The primary purpose of such a public art policy pursued by authorities (mainly municipalities) is to provide a mechanism through which the city acquires public art with respect to the significances for and contributions to public spaces. The public art policy provides guidelines and procedures by which the city manages its artworks through the processes of acquisition (provision), realization, conservation and inventory of public art. It seeks strategic goals for the planning, strategic placement, development and care of public art in the city28 with regard to the artworks‘ manifestations, significances, and contributions in public space. However, as the perspective towards art differentiates in every culture and in different historical periods, the public art policy and public art vary between cultures and can be realized differently in each country and city.

Municipalities are generally the main authorities that are in charge of creating public artworks in urban public spaces in Turkey. Because there is currently no national public art policy in Turkey (such as Percent for Art Policy that is excepted by countries including United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada), each city government has a different public art strategy and practices. This chapter aims to examine the recent public art strategy of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality since the mid-1990s and seeks to particularly assess the spatial contributions of the public art works which were created in the public spaces of Ankara over the last 17 years. Yet, before the analysis of the recent past, the following section summarizes the public art strategy in Turkey before the 1990s.

28Public Art Policy can cover up the processes including administering, acquiring public art (including purchase, commission, donation or creation of community art projects), site selection, maintenance and conservation/restoration, authorities‘ budget funding for public artworks(Public Art Policy Development Group, 2009). 57

3.1. Public Art Strategy from the Early-Republican Period to the 1990s

It is important to briefly explain the public art strategy in Ankara from the 1930s (i.e., the early years of the new Republic when the first city plans appeared) to the 1990s in order to discuss the public art policy of the 1990s and 2000s in Ankara, after the mid-1990s. In the following sections, the policies on public spaces and public artworks are examined to explain how both public art and space were used to represent the ideology of the new Republic. The period after the construction of the new republic is examined because before new republic most of the public artworks; including sculptures, monuments and paintings were not presented in Ottoman Period for the reason that they are prohibited in Islamic belief29 (even if Anatolia had a long traditional background in the art of sculpture before Ottoman periods30 likewise Julien Coloumn in figure1. can be given as an important artefact for Ankara).Sculptures and monuments became a taboo for society as they were perceived as icons which would lead people to idol worship or paganism. During Ottoman period, instead of public artworks in public spaces, floral and geometric decorations were produced. After the construction of the new Republic, the Cultural Revolution in modern period started with the rise of publicness and approaches on public spaces including public artworks. Today, although monumental structures from Roman Empire (like the monument of Julien) or public assets from Seljuk and Ottoman Period (including tombs, architectural assets and decorations) still exists in Ankara, the creation of public artworks in urban space started to increase with the declaration ofthe Republic and with the first plans of Ankara. This section, first investigates the relation between the public art provision in Ankara that affected from and affected the identity of the Republic, while the second examines the public art provision that created the urban culture in Ankara.

29 The conservative and repressive belief in Islam is mainly against the idea of public artwork, especially those which are exhibited in public spaces. It conditions the society for the rejection of, and reactions towards such public artworks in public spaces. It also restricts the construction of the new ones, and hinders to be publicly seen by covering up them with the materials or by moving them to somewhere else. The major reason behind these reactions is that, in the Islamicfaith, theshadow ofa fallingstatue is believed to depictidol. For instance, after the expedition toHungaryin 1526, the Grand Vizier Ġbrahim Pasha brought bronzestatues of Hercules, Apolloand DianafromBudin and placed them in Sultan Ahmet Square (Hür, 2009). Then, the statues were removed from their location because of the public reactions based on idol worship (Hür, 2009). In 1840, during the first anniversary ofthe Imperial Edict of Gülhane (Tanzimat Fermanı), a monument which was called Adalet TaĢı (‗Justice Stone‘) in the western sense was planned to be constructed; yet it was never built (Hür, 2009). The Statue of Liberty in New York had been built actually for Ottoman Empire during the Emperor Sultan Abdülaziz Han period in 1870 (as it was originally named The Light of Asia (Anonymous, 2008). The Project was to design a huge lighthouse in the form of an ancient Egyptian female fellah or peasant, robed and holding a torch aloft, at the northern entrance to the Suez Canal in Port Said (Wikipedia, 2011). The Emperor Sultan Abdülaziz Han commissioned Frederic Auguste Bartholdi -the French artist- to design and build the statue. The statue, however, has never been erected, although it was even shipped from France before the great opening ceremony of Suez Canal (Anonymous, 2008). 30 Anatolia had a traditional background in the art of sculpture like high relief animal figures on stones which are known to be used B.C. 11000 in Göbeklitepe, Southeastern Anatolia. B.C. 2000 Hittites produced monumental structures and sculptures. The utmost reaction to the sculptures and monuments was realized during the East-Roman Empire‘s period which is known as ―iconoclastic period‖. 58

3.1.1. Public Art and Constitution of the Republican Identity in Ankara

Ankara has been subject to different policy processes including constitution of an identity since it has become the capital city of Turkey. In the first years of the Republic, Ankara was planned to create a modern city as a part of the ideology of the new republic. Main squares and official buildings of the city were planned by using ideological symbols, including the public artworks that narrated advanced reform messages, such as the creation of new nation-state and the victory of Turkish war of independence.

The first examples of public artworks in Ankara were built after the proclamation of the Republic. Public art was a part of the planning process to build new capital city of the new Nation State. To create a national (collective) memory, new public spaces were constructed to commemorate the War of Independence, the victories and the Atatürk‘s reforms31. In order to gain the approval and commitment of the society as a part of the ‗nation‘ identity, Nation State carried out an intensive reform program that envisioned a cultural, social political and economic change for the society (Yalım, 2009).Public artworks were designed on the main boulevards and squares of Ankara to emphasize the power of the new nation state and its effectiveness on social life. For example, The Monument of Zafer which means ‗Victory‘, is one of the first monuments of Ankara, aims to impose the basic principles of public consciousness and independency to the common people of a new nation, narrating the war, the victory and the leader of the new republic (Yalım, 2009). During the first years of the Republic, sculptures and monuments were the major public artworks and they have become the prominent means for the constitution of the idea of nation within the society. Squares, public artworks and the city were designed for this purpose and spatial concernments32 also transformed the social ones33. The power and continuity of national memory were aimed to be provided by the creation of these sculptures and monuments. Bilsel expresses that:

31Mustafa Kemal, in his speech in 22 January 1923; expressed that; "a nation which does not draw, a nation which does not make sculpture, a nation which does not do what is required for science, should admit that there exists no place in the way to progress/development of that nation. However our nation deserves to be civilized and advanced with its own genuine and worthy qualities‖ (BeĢkurt, 2006). This speech according to Hür (2009) became the turning point of the creation of Atatürk sculptures which became the tool of the ideology of the revolution all around the cities. Moreover, Mustafa Kemal supports his own monuments and sculptures by expressing that "who see me constructing monument and treat toleranced to those around me making great propaganda, would think that I‘m selfish. On behalf of myself, I do not want to sink into oblivion because I want to makemy ideals memorable‖ (Hür, 2009). 32 These examples of monuments and sculptures were located in the main public spaces, especially in the major squares of the city, based on the idea of creating publicness, public unity, persistence and development. 33 The characteristics of urban life with the interaction of the environment, the process of social concernments transform the spatial ones were also realized in public spaces. 59

In the first quarter of the 20th century, Ankara became the leader city and actor in the nation‟s political history. Republicanregime build a „representative publicness‟ with the aim of creating a national identity and create a collective memory and consciousness and that is embodied with monumental sculptures in urban spaces. (Bilsel, 2009)

Specific sculptures and monuments of this period were located on the squares and public spaces of Atatürk Boulevard which was the most important backbone of the city. For instance, in addition to Zafer (‗victory‘) Monument in Hakimiyet-i Milliye (‗national sovereignty‘) Square, the Monument of MaraĢel Atatürk in Zafer (‗victory‘) Square and the Monument of Güvenlik (‗security‘) in Güvenpark (‗Security Park‘) are situated around Atatürk Boulevard. The Monument of Güvenlik34 and Güvenpark near Kızılay Square were planned to be built by the plan of Austrian architect, C. Holzmeister (who also designed many major public and governmental buildings of the new Turkish Republic). The sculptures on the monument featured the identity of the new republic. Also, the monument was constructed by a stone peculiar to Ankara (called Stone of Mamak) to provide a sense of place through its material. The Monument of Güvenlik was the last monument that was commissioned to a foreign sculptor.

Beside the monuments and sculptures, all governmental buildings in Ankara were located around the main urban squares along Atatürk Boulevard to exhibit the national power. In the early periods of the Republic, the state shows itself not only by the governmental buildings and policies, but also by acting as a planning authority of Ankara. This made the state‘s power rational to the public.

From the 1930s to the 1970s, the Turkish public art became efficient especially in the field of monumental sculpture to pursue and support the Republic ideology, the ideals of the new government and powerful personality of Atatürk. One of the most important and magnificent monuments of the capital city is Anıtkabir (the Tomb of Atatürk)35. Anıtkabir, as an architectural building, was placed on a high hill (called ‗Anıttepe‘) to be seen from different parts of the city. With its main iconic building and groups of sculptures, quirks and inscriptions, Anıtkabir has become one of the symbolic monumental buildings in Ankara since its construction.

34 The Monument of Güvenlik (Güvenlik Anıtı or Emniyet Abidesi) is located in Güvenpark in Kızılay. The artwork represents the friends of Atatürk who accompany him during the War of Independence and movements of revolution. This monument shows the trust of the society to the police and gendarmerie and also includes reliefs which characterize the agriculture of the farmers and intelligence of the people. 35 The architecture of the Tomb of Atatürk represents the characteristics of Turkish architecture between the years 1940 and 1950 that was called ―Second National Architecture Period‖. In this period, the monumental, symmetrical buildings were designed and hewn stone was used. In addition to the characteristics of this period, it is also possible to observe Seljuk and Ottoman architectural features and ornamentation elements on the Tomb of Atatürk. 60

To conclude, after the War of Independence, ‗monument sculptures‘ (e.g., Zafer Anıtı, Güvenlik Anıtı, and Anıtkabir) became the major pieces of public artworks which were built to support the regime and ideology of the new nation state. Although the effects of these monument sculptureswere very important for the society to meet figurative art, they were limited in numbers, and a period had passed in which modern artistic productions were all remained in the background (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2005).

3.1.2. Public Art and Constitution of the Urban Culture after the 1970s

In the 1970s, new and unique public artwork projects were designed by the local authority to enhance the urban culture of Ankara in conjunction with the Republican period36 (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2005). Sculptures were located in the public buildings, pedestrian streets, public parks and squares of the city. Ata Kompozisyonu Anıtı (‗Composition of Ancestor‘) that was located in the park of TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey), and Miras (‗Heritage‘) Sculpture located in front of the railroad station that narrates Nasrettin Hodja sitting backwards on the Hittite Lion which embraces a mixture of Anatolian culture, Hitit GüneĢ Diski (‗Hittite Sun Disc‘)37 in Sıhhiye which gives light to the pre-historic period of Ankara, Eller (‗Hands‘) and Havuz Fıskiyesi (‗Pool Sprinkler‘) sculptures in Abdi Ġpekçi Park, the monument of ‗Seymen‖ in the Seymenler Park, Sculpture of DayanıĢma (‗Solidarity‘) in Batıkent, the statue of Hasat Sonu (‗The End of Harvest‘) in front of Turkish Grain Board Building, and the sculpture of BarıĢ (‗Peace‘) located in the pedestrian road of Sakarya Street are some public artworks built in the 1970s and 1980s.

Besides, in the beginning of 1990, modern and abstract sculptures were built and placed in the public spaces of Ankara. Sculptures with figures of typical Ankara citizens, such as Memur (‗Civil Servant‘), Bankta Oturan Teyze (‗Lady Sitting on the Bank‘), Ayakkabı Boyacısı38 (‗Shoeshine Man‘), Ġnsan Hakları (‗Human Rights‘) which were located in Yüksel Street (a pedestrianized street in the city centre) are significant examples. In addition, the sculpture of Su Perilerinin Dansı (‗Dance of Water Fairies‘) in Kavaklıdere,

36 In 1980, Ali Dinçer -as the mayor of Ankara Municipality- commissioned the important Turkish sculptors, such as Metin Yurdanur, Remzi SavaĢ, Rahmi Aksungur, to produce sculptures concerning the city, the people and the culture (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2005). These sculptors are still working some significant public artworks for the public spaces of Ankara. 37 In this period, Vedat Dalokay –the mayor of Ankara Municipality- decided to use the ―Hittite Sun Disc‖ as the emblem of Ankara Municipality, even before the sculpture was planned. 38Ayakkabı Boyacısı (‗Shoeshine Man‘) Sculpture which is located in the entrance of Yüksel Street had been subject to violence and assault before it was removed. The head of the sculpture was destroyed and used as a waste bin for a period of time; likewise, the body was burnt and damaged with spray paints (Lıcalı/CumhuriyetAnkara, 2008). 61

ÖpüĢenler (―Kisses‘) located in Kuğulu Park, sculpture of Çocukların KardeĢliği (meaning ‗fellowship of children‘) in Batıkent Children‘s Park, Sarıkız (‗Fair Girl‘) in KurtuluĢ Park, Madenci (‗Miner‘) in Olgunlar Street and TaĢankara (‗Stone Ankara‘) located in Sakarya Street (an important pedestrianized area in the city centre) were built in this period. These public artworks which were built and placed by local authority, has revealed and enhanced abstract perspective in art, urban culture and local identity in Ankara.

3.2. Public Art Strategy of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipalitybetween 1994 and 2011

As explained above, after the declaration of Ankara as the capital city, the public art interventions were planned and constructed together with the planning and construction works of Ankara. This era denoted with the republic was rich in terms of the creation of public spaces and squares. Likewise, public artwork constructed in Ankarafrom the 1920s to the early-1990s were important in terms of creating national (collective) memory and presenting the symbols of the Republican ideology (nation-state), and urban culture which was nurtured from the rhetoric of modernism. However, after 1994, this process was changed through the new public space and public art strategy of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality.

Ankara Metropolitan Municipality is one of the most powerful public institutions that develop projects for the city and public spaces. According to Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 (2004), metropolitan municipalities are responsible for making and approving master plans and implementation plans, developing the city according to these plans, constructing, managing and maintaining the major public spaces (including city squares, boulevards, avenues and highways) and making all necessary arrangements to organize and regulate traffic circulation within the metropolitan municipality borders.

In the 1994 local election, Melih Gökçek39 was elected as the new mayor of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. Following his success in this election, he was elected three times in 1999, 2004 and 2009 and he has become an important political figure who has shaped both the fortune and the urban space of Ankara. Gökçek has represented conservative and religious ideology to some extent. Thus, this period has been dominated by conservative and pro-Islamist vision which became an integral part of the

39 Melih Gökçek elected from Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) in 1994. He continued his political carrier in Virtue Party (Fazilet Partisi) after the Welfare Party was abolished. In 1999, he was elected as the mayor of the metropolitan municipality. After Virtue Party (Fazilet Partisi) was abolished, he continued his political carrier in Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi). He is the first person who was elected four times as the mayor of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. 62 implementations of the Municipality. Also, the Municipality integrated itself easily to the neo-liberal economic policies.

Yağcı (2006) claims that today‘s public art strategy in Ankara has been shaped in the local authority‘s nippers. Over the last two decades, Ankara has not had any integrated and holistic public art strategy. All public art projects have been planned through piecemeal policies by the Metropolitan Municipality. This period is an important transformation and alternation era, as it presents a new understanding and strategy towards public artworks which has endangered the promoted strategy of the early period. While assessing the public art after the 1990s in Ankara City, this study specifically aims to evaluate Metropolitan Municipality‘s recent public art policies, interventions, statements and their effects in public spaces of the city. The following section explains the perspective of Metropolitan Municipality towards public art by giving examples on the early spatial policies towards existing public artworks and assets which left a mark on Ankara and its public spaces that they located. The latter sections focus on the public art projects which were created, as well as those which were proposed, but were not implemented, and those which were proposed to be constructed in the future. All the analyses of these multiple examples seek to draw and discuss the policies and perspective of the local authority on public artworks.

3.2.1. The effect of moral values on the perspective of the AMM towards the public artworks in Ankara

One way of understanding the perspective of the local authority towards public artworks is to examine the interventions of the Metropolitan Municipality to different modern public art elements in Ankara. Since 1994, the local authority has been showing a conservative approach to the public artworks (Doğan, 2005). Some contemporary public artworks were removed from their locations by the Municipality without even consulting to the public, arguing that they were not appropriate for the public spaces and public life as they represented and promoted immoral notions.

One of the public artworks which were removed was the roman sculpture in Gençlik Park. But, the most serious reaction on the public artwork was shown to Mehmet Aksoy‘s sculpture in Altınpark, called ‗Periler Ülkesinde‘ (‗In Fairies Country‘). The mayor criticised the sculpture by describing it as ‗racy‘, claiming that ―they give the name ‗art‘ to ‗immorality‘‖ and stating that ―I spit on this kind of an ‗art‘‖ (Acar, 2011). Then, the artwork was removed from its place in 1994 and was kept in the Municipality‘s warehouse (Acar, 2011). In the same year, ‗Tutku‘ (which means ‗passion‘), another public artwork in Altınpark, was also removed because it was also found to be ‗racy‘ (Yazıcıoğlu, 2005). The

63 sculpture of ‗Periler Ülkesinde‘ which was awarded many times, was re-installed in its original place in 2005 after 11 years later due to the success of the court case of its sculptor (T24, 2011). However the sculpture was corroded and some of its parts were broken after its removal during the period it was kept in warehouse. After the relocation of the sculpture without making its maintenance, Aksoy (sculptor of Periler Ülkesi) expressed that:

―I want to overhaul and make its maintenance. Its situation has stick in my gizzard. But that sculpture has a history, a lifetime. Therefore it will remain broken and of course it will be observed. Because that broken fragment is the dignity of the sculpture...‖ (Akyol/Milliyet, 2005)

Figure 20. The ―Periler Ülkesinde‖ sculpture before it was removed from Altınpark Source: (Ankara Heykelleri, 2003) and (ntvmsnbc)

Doğan (2005) expresses that this incidence shows the mayor‘s attitude as his revenge towards modernity nurtured by his nationalist and conservative perspective. This kind of interventions towards the public artworks has been also made by the local authorities of different cities until 201140.

40 In recent years different local authorities, mayors and even Prime Minister used similar manners to different public artworks. For instance, Aşk Yağmuru sculpture in Kemer district of city, was also removed (just after the change in local elections) by the mayor of Kemer because of the reason that it was found racy in 2009 (Altıparmakoğlu(soLküLtür), 2011). The mayor explained that ―Local people and tourists demanding the removal of the statue. The statue that includes figures of man and woman, is disturbing the morality of young people and the peace of families. Sculpture was not accepted by the citizens and tourists. We have made the required mission.‖ Nude Venus sculptures which represent Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival, are prevented to be used in film festival for 4 years by the Mayor (Altıparmakoğlu(soLküLtür), 2011). In 2009, after the change in local elections the sculptures replaced during the festival however one of the sculptures was burned by an unidentified person in that period (Altıparmakoğlu(soLküLtür), 2011). The most impressive example would be the case of İnsanlık Anıtı (‗the Monument of Humanity‘) which was located in the city of Kars. The construction of the monument was decided unanimously by Kars City Council in 2005. The construction of Ġnsanlık Anıtı which is going to be the highest monumental public artwork in Turkey, has started in 2006. The monument had a characteristic of symbolizing the peace in the world and in Caucasus region and it could be seen from Armenia (it was also said that the monument was decided to constructed as a response against the Genocide Monument in Armenia) (Tahaoğlu(bianet), 2011) (ĠnternetHaber, 2011). The figures of the monument constructed however it couldn‘t be completed. It was aimed to be finished in world peace day 2008 but it couldn‘t be finished in time. In 2009 local elections mayor of the Kars has changed, so the mayor who supported the monument has changed and the council vetoed the construction of the monument. Ġnsanlık Anıtı stayed unfinished. Before the general elections, in 8th January 2011 Prime Minister Erdoğan went to city of Kars for public meeting and expressed that: 64

Figure 21. Ġnsanlık Anıtı is a significant example from Kars which was demolished in 2011. Source:Personal Archive and (Tahaoğlu(bianet), 2011)

‗Su Perileri‘ Sculpture which is one of the oldest sculptures of the Republican period is a specific example for Ankara. It was called Ankara‘s ‗voyager‘ or, ‗mobile‘ sculpture, as its location was changed many times since it was constructed41 (Büyükyıldız, 2009).

―Here, just adjacent to Hasan Harakani Majesty they located a freak, a strange thing! In a place near to the existing foundation‘s artifacts, it is inconceivable that such a thing can exists. The Mayor will perform the task of on the issue quickly. We are looking forward rapidly. Hopefully we will see the first time we came to visit again‖ (soL, 2011) After this public meeting, it was argued that the monument affects adversely the sacred, historical artifacts and their silhouette besides it violates the existing architectural aesthetics of the area (ensonhaber, 2011). The Kars City Council decided to deconstruct the monument by majority of votes in 1st February 2011 (ĠnternetHaber, 2011). The monument was deconstructed in three months peace by peace, even if different demonstrations realized by artists, professionals and public (ĠnternetHaber, 2011). After the deconstruction of Ġnsanlık Anıtı, the Mayor explained their new ‗honey‘ and ‗kashar cheese‘ sculpture project that would contribute promotion of the city (Habertürk, 2011). The mayor BozkuĢ explained that ―the sculptures are designed more or less... Sculptures of kashar cheese and honey will be located at the entrance of the city on either side of the road. Those who see the sculptures would say that ‗this place is famous with its kashar cheese‘‖ (Habertürk, 2011). Mayor explained that the project of these two sculptures shows that they are not against art and added that ―it is useful to make something that identifies with the city. We need to produce new project that would solve the products‘ market problems. So we wanted to take people‘s attention by constructing these sculptures that are identified with Kars‖ (Habertürk, 2011). Besides these examples different interventions of local authorities towards public artworks and public art events are also realized. 41 Su Perileri Sculpture is a specific Baroc style craftsmanship example. After it was imported from Europe by ġehremini Asaf Bey in 1925 and located first in an empty area in Çankaya Road, then it was located infront of Iran Embassy and then on a place along the road to Maltepe (Büyükyıldız, 2009). Afterward, before the Kızılay Building which gave the name to the Kızılay Square was constructed, the sculpture was located on the square between 1925 and 1930. According to Büyükyıldız, Su Perileri Sculpture created a poolside and entertainment culture in Kızılay which is going to be maintained afterwards (Büyükyıldız, 2009). In that period Kızılay area was known as ―Havuz BaĢı‖ (―pool side‖) because of the sculpture. After Kızılay Square was planned, the sculpture was removed from its place and located to the area which is going to be known as Gençlik Parkı. With the construction works of Gençlik Parkı in 1940 Su Perileri Sculpture removed from its place again and located in Hacettepe Parkı with important damages on its top area and after 1950s with the foundation and construction of , sculpture was relocated to Tandoğan Square (Büyükyıldız, 2009). Until the constructions of Ankaray stations in 1992 the sculpture was sited in Tandoğan Square. 65

Figure 22. Su Perileri Sculpture when it was in Kızılay Square (top), in Hacettepe area 1950s (down-left) and in Tandoğan Square 1970s (down-right) Sources: (Arcak, 2010), (Vikipedi, 2008) and (wowturkey, 2007)

‗Su Perileri‘ which was located in Tandoğan Square for almost forty years was removed from its place because of the construction works of Ankaray station in 1992. Tandoğan Square became the last public location for the sculpture. After the completion of this station, a ceramic teapot and cup was located instead to advertise the firm that designed the artwork. Büyükyıldız (2009) expresses that replacing Su Perileri Sculpture with the ceramic work shows how the aesthetic perception and the significance to the Capital City‘s sense of place has changed dramatically. Removing Su Perileri sculpture does not only show the moral and aesthetic understanding of the current local authority, but also indicate how they can easily disrupt and wipe out the collective memory of the place.

Figure 23. The ceramic teapot of Kütahya Porselen in Tandoğan Square and the Su Perileri sculpture when it was kept in the Municipality‘s warehouse Source: (Arcak, 2010)

Su Perileri sculpture, after its removal from Tandoğan, was kept in the Municipality‘s warehouse of Park and Garden Department for eighteen years. In 2008, the Mayor announced that the sculpture would be placed neither in the same site ever again, nor a new location in the city. Although different institutions and agencies42 asked the Municipality‘s permission to restore and exhibit the sculpture, they have become unsuccessful. In 2010, the sculpture was located in Cer Modern Arts Centre, and has been exhibited since then.

42 Foundations including Painting and Sculpture Museum, Hacettepe University, Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation had offered officially. 66

According to Acar (2011) ‗Su Perileri‘, which was once a public artwork accessible to everybody because of its location, has become a garden‘s decoration like a private artwork in an arts centre. Even if the new location of the artwork is not a private place, it has lost its publicness to a certain extent.

Figure 24. Su Perileri Sculpture at Cer Modern Source: (Arcak, 2010) and Personal Archive

Except for intentional and official removals of public artworks, missing artworks in urban environment of Ankara has increased drastically in this period. In 2009, Habertürk made a list of Ankara‘s lost sculptures between 1994 and 2011 as follows: Sculpture of ‗Ayakkabı Boyacısı‘ in Yüksel Street, sculpture of ‗Bavullu Adam‘ (‗Man with the Suitcase‘), reliefs of the monuments in AOÇ, sculpture of ‗Dilenci‘ (‗Beggar‘) in Sakarya Street, the figures of two children in front of Ethnography Museum, the sculpture of ‗Women with the Swimsuit‘ in the garden of Municipality building, sculpture of Irene Irene in Adnan Ötüken Park, Sculpture of ‗Çocukların KardeĢliği‘ (‗Fellowship of Children‘) in Batıkent Children‘s Park, in addition to ‗Baba ve Oğul‘ (‗Father and Son‘) - another Mehmet Aksoy‘s sculpture- in Altınpark (Acar, 2011). As can be noted, the number of public artworks which were taken away from the public spaces without public consultation is considerably high.This shows that essential public art strategies including protection, maintenance and pursuance are not provided properly by the local authority.

3.2.2. Approaches towards the Existing Public Artworks and Assets in Existing Public Spaces

Ankara, as a city which hosted different civilizations43 throughout history, has a crucial place especially for the Republic of Turkey. Since Ankara was declared as the capital city, it became the face of the revolution, the new republic, with new social and spatial rituals.

43 Ankara which has been a crucial city for different civilizations including Hattities, Hittites, Frigians, Lydians, Persians, Macedonians, Galatians, Romans, Seljukians, Ottomans, has a (known) history till 10.000 years before. 67

As mentioned before, public artworks with a historical and commemorative character recall important historic events, activities and figures to establish a strong link between the public with its national history, and thereby to create a national (collective) memory. In fact, such artworks have been used to get the Turkish public accustomed with public art (mainly with sculptures and monuments).

To create, preserve and sustain the collective memory, first, it is crucial to protect, and maintain the existing public artworks, to integrate them with new urban developments, and to reveal their power through essential rearrangements. Likewise, it is also essential to create new artworks with contemporary methods in order to sustain collective embracement of public art.

Ankara Metropolitan Municipality has not had a substantive and holistic policy to strengthen, maintain or preserve the early-Republican architecture and public artworks. However, the protection, maintenance and preservation of the existing public artworks to prolong their lifetime and to transfer them to the next generations are as much important as the creation of new public artworks for city. However, as Cezayirlioğlu (2010) claims, Ankara‘s citizens and governors have not been sensitive in this sense. This can be particularly observed through the insensitive interventions of the metropolitan municipality in the significant public spaces and public artworks of the early-Republican period. These interventions have not only undermined the existing characteristic and identities of these public spaces and public artworks, but they have also decreased their symbolic values by affecting their unity, accessibility, legibility and artistic attributes, and/or blurred the symbolic meanings in citizens‘ mind. Consequently, these interventions have led to blur and lose the collective memory of the city. The images of Republican period based on ―modern city‖ and ―modern city life‖ have been trivialized in the public eye; and the public who has been unaware of the alternation process has perceived these interventions as the beautification of the public spaces. On the other hand, the municipal interventions have had no intention to provide the public involvement in the public art projects, to make constructive discussions and debates on the public spaces and public artwork projects, thereby increasing citizens‘ awareness about the city problems and contributing to public education.

The municipal interventions on Atatürk Boulevard are rather illustrative of AMM‘s general attitude towards the existing public artworks. The Boulevard was designed as a representative space for the Republic in accordance to modern urban lifestyle and life standards. The spatial organisation of Ankara was planned in accordance with the squares as social nodes along and connected to the Boulevard. Atatürk Boulevard had also acted as

68 the central axis for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. It can even be seen as the main promenade of the city and the major social arterial of the city centre. However, the design approach of the Metropolitan Municipality has changed (infact, eradicated) the initial character and identity of the Boulevard and the main public spaces on it.

This section examines and discusses the recent municipal interventions towards the significant public spaces and the public artworks of Atatürk Boulevard including Ulus (Hakimiyet-i Milliye) Square, Gençlik Park, Ankara Train Station, Sıhhiye (Lozan Square and Abdi Ġpekçi Park), Zafer Square and Güvenpark (See figure 16). These public spaces and public artworks are specifically choosen as they are significant public artworks and assets together with their public spaces in Ankara. These examples have physical and visual sinificances on the public spaces they exist through the relations of form, scale, colour, texture, use of materials and meanings.

69

Figure 25. The spatial locations of the public spaces and the artworks they correlate Source: Personal Renderings/personal Archive

70

3.2.2.1. Hakimiyet-i Milliye (Ulus) Square and Zafer Monument Hakimiyet-i Milliye Square (‗national sovereignty‘, is also known as Ulus (Nation) Square) where in the Nation‘s victory of independence is narrated with the Monument of Zafer44 (Victory) Monument in the middle, has been the heart of capital city in the early- Republican years. Zafer Monument has been a significant symbolic landmark integrating the society by making them share the values and meanings it grasps in Ulus historical centre and Atatürk Boulevard up to the present. Zafer Monument was relocated during the refurbishment of the square (including the roads, buildings) that affected the perception of the square and the monument. Even if the monument and the square were affected from the interventions, the boulevard developed over the years taking the square and sculpture as a specific focal point.

Figure 26. Zafer Monument in 1930s and 2011 Source: (Tunçer, Demiryolu ve BaĢkent Ankara, 2011) and Personal Archive

Ulus Square45 including its environment and the monument, was subject to different municipal projects, which were not implemented within the period 1994-2011. Although no improvement and rearrangement took place specifically on the square after 1994, both the monument and the square have been subject to mistreatment. Due to the arrangements on Atatürk Boulevard, the square which used to be the main gathering place in Ulus is now used as a transition (walk and pass) place, stuck in the corner of a high-density vehicular and pedestrian traffic that are separated by the physical barriers. The square is not providing

44 Zafer Monument was originated from Lörcher‘s (who is the planner of the first plan of Ankara) schemas for Hâkimiyet-i Milliye Square (Toplumsal Tarih, 2009). The monument was designed by Heinrich Krippel using marble, sand, stone of Ankara (which is also known as Mamak Stone) and granite (Kaptan, 2009). The monument which was opened in 24 November 1927 narrates and commemorates the heroism, victories of the nation by using sculpture groups of soldiers, peasants, women and Mustafa Kemal all stand together. Another aspect is that the monument was realized without taking any help form national treasury but by the fund raised by the public. The monument which was created by all means of a nation had been a significant symbolic meaning for the public as it expresses the existence and independence of the nation. 45 Ulus –the historical city centre- has been a critical place subject to different, partial projects and policies between 1994 and 2011. In 2005, the mayor explained his point of view about Ulus through the words ―demolishment-reconstruction‖ (Arkitera, 2005). In 2005, he announced that the municipality would demolish a number of early-Republican buildings (100. Yıl Bazaar, Ulus Urban Bazaar, General Directorate of Youth and Sports and Anafartalar Bazaar) around Zafer Monument and would build a square with green space, car park and a giant shopping centre instead (Arkitera, 2005). Another project was to convert and use 100-year old Sümerbank Building as the City Hall (Arkitera, 2005). However these projects haven not realized. 71 pedestrians with the opportunities to spend some leisure time around and to experience the monument. The recent renewal project has led to reduce the public accessibility and legibility of the sculpture. Likewise, the maintenance of and Zafer Monument was neglected in this period. For instance, the stairs that connect the square with its environment are broken; garbage is seen in day-time, and the monument is affected from bird wastes, and put up posters46.

In 2009, the Metropolitan Municipality dyed the bronze sculptures of Zafer Monument with golden yellow colour without consulting experts and professionals and without even considering the maintenance requirements of the original material of the artwork. This situation hit the headlines of the newspapers as ―the ignorant benefaction can only be this much!‖ (Acar, 2011).Following the reactions from the public, experts and professionals, the golden colour of the sculpture was erased by the Metropolitan Municipality under sculptors‘ supervision and it was dyed its original bronze colour47 (Radikal, 2009).Unfortunately, the sculpture was damaged due to this cleaning process.

Figure 27.The bronze sculptures of the Monument of Zafer had been dyed with golden yellow colour in 2009 Source: (Radikal, 2009)

The unrestrained and insensible intervention of the Metropolitan Municipality towards such symbolic public artworks has led to damage their unique qualities and characteristics of their components. Unfortunately no authority was able to stop or prevent these insensitive municipal actions.

46 Even the first years when the monument was exhibited, it was cleaned with specific soap and treatments fot he monument by Ankara Fire Department and the square was cleaned by sprinklers twice a day (Ergir, DüĢ Hekimi 4, 2004). 47The advocacy of the Mayor was about their good intentions to convert the sulpture‘s colour to its original bronze colour and get rid of the oxidized stains on it (Radikal, 2009). 72

3.2.2.2. Gençlik Parkı and the Sculptures in the park

Gençlik Parkı (Youth Park), which is one of the first urban parks of Ankara, has been a symbolic place with its social, historical and ideological significances for the capital city. The park was proposed in the first plans48 of Ankara aiming to play a significant role in the modern social life of Ankara citizens. The design of the park including spatial relations, its elements, and usages49, has been a tool for the hegemony. The park itself became an important place which complemented the identity of Ankara. Beside its spatial features for the city, public artworks in Gençlik Parkı have become symbols for the modern urban life.

However, the park started to decline in the 1980s and became a deteriorating site due to the degeneration of its unique qualities and characteristics, the changes in its users groups, and its functions, and the deliberate disregard and neglect of the local authority50 (Akansel, 2009; Mimdap, 2009). Consequently, it lost its significance as a social gathering and recreational space in urban life. The park has been recently renovated by Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. The renovation works were completed in 2009.

Figure 28. The renderings of Gençlik Parkı renovation project from the perspective of Ulus gate and Cumhuriyet Sculpture. Source: (Akansel, 2009)

48 The location of Gençlik Parkı in Ankara is proposed on the wetland area of Ġncesu Creek‘s flood plain and the preliminary design proposal of the park was prepared by Hermann Jansen (who also made the master plan of Ankara in 1932) (Akansel, 2009). This proposal was later replaced by Leveau‘s plan because of economic and aesthetical reasons. The initial proposal of the park aimed to create a strong effect on visitors about the city especially for the people who arrived at Ankara train station. For this reason, an axial pool was designed to create the relation from train station through the citadel (Akansel, 2009). 49 Gençlik Parkı is far from being just a leisure area; it created an active life for the capital city. In addition to refreshing and recreational functions; Gençlik Parkı included other activities like water sports, winter sports (ice-skating), the musical and theatrical performances including the dance activities and the respectable refreshment bars (Gazino) (Akansel, 2009). 50 Since the 1980s, several interventions affected the characteristics of the district and affected the image of the park, such as road enlargements, search for car-parking areas and subway construction, the installation of the metro station in the year 1997, degenerated environmental qualities including the wrong managements of the tea houses, restaurants and buffets. Moreover, the land value was modified as the ownership was transferred from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism to the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality which ended up with the act of demolishing the ‗unused‘ structures, cutting off the running-water and electricity, mounting concrete obstacles in the entrance gates (Akansel, 2009). 73

The recent renovation project took a few years to be completed due to the discussions about the effects of the project on the spatial, social and economic characteristics of the park. A substantial reaction by professionals51 was occurred for realization of the project and the first intentional project was changed with respect to these significant oppositions. The project respects the existing layout of the park, the pool and significant symbolic elements are protected likelandscape elements, pergolas, gates (even if their usage has changed), etc. The Municipality claimed that the project would not change the identity of the park and it would rather give a ‗modern‘52 and ‗useful‘ look to the park (Peyzajist, 2009). However, by introducing new sitting benches, design sunshades, new pavements with figurative details, new colourful lightening scheme along the park and the pool at night time, and new sprinklers on the pool (which totally affected the functions and usages of the pool), the new design has created a different identity for the park.

The Municipality‘s attitude towards the existing symbolic values and assets for the renovationof Gençlik Parkı is significantly considerable. Within the renovation project, the strategies for strengthening the existing symbolic values and assets of the park stayed in the background. During the renovation process, however, some public artworks were either demolished, or removed and reconstructed, regardless of their artistic and symbolic meanings. This ultimately damaged the identity and collective memory of Gençlik Parkı. For instance, the sculptures of the Roman girl and boy, which had been two symbolic sculptures of the park, were removed from their original places. This intervention was interpreted as ―half-naked‖ figures of the sculptures are found ―racy‖ by Metropolitan Municipality (Cezayirlioğlu, 2010). Likewise, Atatürk board situated in the entrance of Opera was removed and nobody knows what it happened (Mimdap, 2009). Besides, during the renovation period, the terraced part was rebuilt with an entirely different texture quality; the pedestrian bridge and the mini train (used to be operated since 1957) which were the

51 The process of the project including Gençlik Parkı together with Atatürk Kültür Merkezi (AKM) was started in 2001. In 2005, it was approved to be applied by National Committee (Akansel, 2009). However the Metropolitan Municipality represented the ‗urban transformation projects‘ in which only Gençlik Parkı is considered to be modified. The ‗regeneration‘ plan modified the decisions on some buildings (such as, the open- air theatre) which had to be conserved with to the decision of the National Committee (Akansel, 2009). The plan also accommodated the new functions and buildings which disregarded the constructive and adjunctive components of the park (Akansel, 2009). Due to the reactions, these radical parts of the regeneration project of AKM area and Gençlik Parkı were not realized. A different project for Gençlik Parkı was realized opened to be used in August 30th, 2009 (Koç & Bilgöl, 2009). The main architect/designer of the renovation project is Öner Tokcan. 52 The park, which used to represent the modern urban life with the recreational areas, a big pool surrounded by tea gardens, respectable refreshment bars, was changed by the conservative approach of the current Municipality. For instance, alcohol sale and consumption which were prohibited in this period, has happened for the first time in the history of the park. The Municipality carried out the same regulation for other urban parks, such as Altınpark, Mogan Lake, Göksu Park, Harikalar Diyarı and Mavi Göl Park. Currently, there is no urban park which allows alcohol consumption under the responsibility of the Metropolitan Municipality in Ankara (soL(Ankara), 2008). 74 major symbols of the park to be conserved were demolished53 (Akansel, 2009). All these interventions led to undermine the symbolic meanings and values of Gençlik Parkı and attempted to damage its collective memory which represented the modernization of urban life and society.

Figure 29. Pictures of Roman women in the old postcards as a symbol of Ankara Source: (TaĢdelen, 2010)

Figure 30.The new places of Roman Girl and Roman Boy Sculptures Source: (TaĢdelen, 2010)

The renovation project led to the reconstruction of many existing buildings rather than conserving them. The cultural centres of Necip Fazıl Kısakürek and Kemal Sunal were knocked down and new buildings with high technology were constructed. The architectural style of these buildings is eclectic; i.e. the amalgamation of Seljuk and Ottoman architecture with modern and technological methods (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2009). Without considering the height limitations which used to be implemented in the past, the open air theatre was converted to a larger building. The two buildings belonged to the Municipality, namely traffic signalization building and city band building, were demolished and the new buildings were constructed. Akansel (2009) points out how this renovation project has increased the development rights of the buildings by means of levels

53 During the renovation process, the terraced district is modified with an entirely different texture quality, the large bidge (which was one of the first execution in the park) was demolished despite the fact that it was in the list of components to be conserved and the mini train in the park which was installed in 1957 was demolished (Akansel, 2009). 75 and surface areas, regardless of their use value. Demirsoy (2009), on the other hand, claims that the cultural fabric of the park was destroyed by the newly built buildings.

New public spaces and public artworks were designed for the park. All these modifications have changed the image of the park. For instance, Ulus gate -one of the gates of the park- was redesigned. The new design of the gate, created a functioınal and decorative gateway however, it has negatively affected the identity and spatial characteristics of the park. First of all, as Akansel (2009) expresses, the design of the new gate changed the axial-visual characteristics which was one of the unique qualities of the park. Second, the new gate was designed through the modern interpretation of the Seljuk-style decorations; and this creates a contrasting scene with the original identity of the park (Peyzajist, 2009).

Figure 31. The old gate which is now used as watchman‘s hut and new Ulus gate of Gençlik Parkı (Mimdap, 2009)

Despite these destructive interventions on the existing features of the park, a public space on the narrow side of the pool near the Station entrance side of the park, namely ‗Cumhuriyet Square‘, was built; and a new monument called Cumhuriyet54 (‗republic‘) Monument was installed in the middle of the square (Koç & Bilgöl, 2009). The Monument has become a new landmark for the park with its high visuality. This shows the attempt of the renovation project to maintain the republican identity. Yet, many interventions envisaged by the renovation project deliberately changed the original characteristics, symbols and assets of the park and thereby led to lose the collective memory of the park and Ankara.

54 The monument which narrates two hands holding the earth was designed by Metin Yurdanur -one of the famous sculptor of Ankara (Koç & Bilgöl, 2009). 76

Figure 32.The new monument of Gençlik Parkı which has created a gathering place for visitors Source: (Mimdap, 2009)

After the completion of the renovation project, the Statue of Nur Sultan Nazarbayev (the President of Kazakhstan) was erected in Gençlik Parkı in 2010 as a part of international politics (i.e., to stabilize the relationship between Kazakhstan and Turkey55). In return, a statue of Atatürk was to be erected in Astana (CHA, 2010). Thus, after its renovation, Gençlik Parkı became once again a subject to a political ground which expresses the international relations of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality and its mayor.

Figure 33.The sculpture of Nazarbayev in Gençlik Parkı Source: Personal Archive

55 In these days, the Mayor (2010) states that; ―The Republic of Kazakhstan had a negative attitude towards Turkey. How could it have been reversed? We located a sculpture in front of Gençlik Parkı, Kazakhstan was impressed by it, and we became the man under the spotlight. Nazarbayer‘s political power was also strengthened. Do you know the meaning of erecting a president‘s sculpture to another country? Now what I ask as a favour, it will be accepted.‖ 77

Besides the renovation project, in 2010, Metropolitan Municipality introduced the idea of a ‗sprinkler-ski dance show‘ (a musical and visual water show with sprinkler-skis) on the pool of Gençlik Parkı. The project is explained in detail in the section of 3.1.2.1. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this pool was designed as a calming feature of the park and a place for quiet water sports activities, such as ice skating and rowing activities. The new project of the municipality, however, attempts to turn the pool into a noisy, luminous and swanky show stage, which clearly changed the original recreational use and identity of the pool.

Figure 34.Gençlik Parkı‘s pool was a significant recreational element that served also opportunity for water sports Source: (wowturkey, 2007) and (Erdoğan, Günel, & Narince, Cumhuriyet Ve BaĢkent Ankara, Ankara Tarihi ve Kültürü Dizisi: 4, 2007)

A patchy public opinion survey on this project is another aspect of this project. As happened in other public space projects, the Municipality carried out a survey in the park gates to understand the citizens‘ opinions56 (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2010). Based on the surveyors‘ explanations, most public voters approved the project, thinking that the scheme aims to beautify the pool and the park. Here, the major problem with the municipal conduct of public survey is very controversial. The municipality has not carried out any survey for public opinion or public collaboration regarding the whole renovation project of Gençlik Parkı57, whereas the ‗visual show‘ project became a subject to the public survey and public consultation. This shows clearly the intention of the municipality to use the tools for public participation (which is in the case the public survey) not to advance the local democracy, to increase community engagement for the creation of a sense of belonging, to enrich people‘s experience of art, design and understanding of environment, and public education, but to use it as a means of legitimising the municipal projects and interventions in front of the public.

56 The Metropolitan Municipality gives the project details with a 3-D video of the probable visual show and similar project examples from the world. The cost of the Project is estimated around 2-3 million Euros (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2010). 57 Even if there existed an opposition for the previous Gençlik Parkı project, the discussions have occurred between AMM and the professionals and professional chambers. The general public was unaware of the transformation project but they have generally appreciated these projects because of their visual and aesthetic appeal. 78

To sum up, the recent renovation process of Gençlik Parkı and later interventions as a whole indicates the municipality‘s intentions and attempts to create a new identity for the park. By neglecting, demolishing and removing the existing symbolic assets and values which were originally designed to represent the modernization of urban life and society, and to promote modern architecture, the recent renovation project has demolished the original identity and the collective memory of the park. By replacing these original symbols with the new ones (new buildings, public artworks and show events), it has clearly tried to create a new identity for the park. The new identity of the park, however, is rather eclectic. With the modern interpretation of Ottoman and Seljuk architectural figures and motifs, the new identity of the park belongs to neither the past, nor the future.

3.2.2.3. Ankara Train Station and Miras Sculpture

Ankara Train Station which bears the traces of the Republican era with its modern architectural-style building, station‘s refreshment bar and the front square has been significant intra-city and inter-city gathering place (including incoming and departing functions) of the Capital City. Besides the architectural significances, an artwork called ‗Miras‘ (―heritage‖) which was installed in 1979 in the front squareof the station –a square which used to function as a meeting, gathering and welcoming place. The sculpture used to contribute to the meaning of the place and to act as a means to reveal repressed histories and identities. The Miras (―heritage‖) Sculpture depicts Nasrettin Hodja (a famous and humorous historical Turkish character) sitting back on the top of a Hittite Lion (a symbolic figure from one of the first Anatolian civilizations). It narrates and symbolises the rich Anatolian culture by referring to a well-known Nasrettin Hodjaanecdote. Metin Yurdanur – the sculptor of Miras- explains his artwork as an expression of the whole Anatolian civilizations. The sculpture shows Nasreddin Hodja‘s journey to the Anatolian history in his humorous way (Birharf, 2011). Yurdanur explains his sculptor as follows:

If you ask why the figure of Nasreddin Hodja and the Lion of Hittite stay together, I would say, Anatolian civilizations are an inseparable whole. It is the continuation of civilizations which are bonded one to another. That is to say, the civilization which emerged by destroying another civilization took and maintained the culture of the demolished civilization (Birharf, 2011)

Therefore, Miras Sculpture became a significant public artwork that used to enhance the identity of this place by using the historical and cultural contents of the society.

The square of the station was re-designed and renewed to function as a car-parking area, and a taxi-rank started to operate in front of the station. The location of this sculpture changed several times due to these renovation projects. All the spatial rearrangements negatively affected the characteristics of the place and the public artwork. In 2008, the

79

Metropolitan Municipality carried out another public space renovation project in cooperation with the redesign of the main avenue passing by in front of the train station. The main avenue was turned into an inner-city bypass accompanied by a series of underpasses and flyovers on the major crossroads. Many professional chambers objected this project, claiming that the new avenue with a new crossroad design prioritized car traffic while neglecting pedestrians, and that the square of the train station would lose its publicness and characteristics58 (Hürriyet, 2008).

Figure 35.The square of the train station during and after the renewal process Source: (Hürriyet, 2008) and personal archive

The new rearrangement of the avenue has negatively affected both the train square and Miras Sculpture, as the professional chambers foresaw. Even though the Mayor claimed that the new avenue created a huge square in front of the station (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2008), the square, functioning as a stationary area for vehicles, is now a useless space for all its users. With the latest renovation project, the square and the pedestrian roads were narrowed down. This has reduced the publicness of the square. Also, Miras Sculpture was removed from its place in the middle of the closest roundabout to the train station. This has reduced the accessibility and legibility of the sculpture, thus its publicness, Later, the sculpture was relocated on a small green island surrounded by barriers in the vehicle entrance of the station‘s square (which is now functioning as a stationary area), stuck in the traffic. It is now hardly perceived by the people. Likewise it is hardly accessible by pedestrians, too. The new location decreased the public art‘s contributions to the station‘s square.

58 Nevzat Ersan who was the chief of Chamber of Civil Engineers expressed they are against the reconstruction of the road by adding; ―Metropolitan Municipality failed in all the projects that they realized within the issues including pedestrian priority, transparency, participation, conservation of cultural assets, protection of Republican symbolic assets and Ankara‘s identity of being the capital city‖ (Hürriyet, 2008). 80

Figure 36.The new location of Miras Sculpture with is surrounded by barriers and vehicles Source: Personal Archive

The number of sculptures which were surrounded by barriers, like Miras Sculpture and the Monument of Hittite Sun Disk (which is going to be explained in 3.2.2.4.), has recently increased due to the rising vandalism on public artworks. As vandalisms and violations against public art around city are increased, local authorities introduce new strategies to protect them, such as building barriers or putting up security cameras around sculptures (Acar, 2011). These strategies are effective to fight against crime for a short time. They are based on a reduction approach for crime opportunities rather than reducing the motivation of people‘s commit crime through education, moral guidance and soon. However, public authorities should find out strategies that increase people‘s awareness about public artworks by protecting and maintaining these cultural assets and urban environment where they exist.

To summarise, the recent municipal interventions59on the public space and public artwork of Ankara Train Station undermined the existing identity of the square and public artwork, and ultimately reduced the publicness of both the public space and the artwork.

3.2.2.4. Sıhhiye and the Monument of Hittite Sun Disk

Sıhhiye, a district of the city centre lying between Ulus and Kızılay, is a significant symbolic place for Ankara because of several public artworks, including the monument of Hittite Sun Disk60 in Lozan Square and Eller (―Hands‖) and Havuz Fıskiyesi (―Pool Sprinkler‖) sculptures in Abdi Ġpekçi Park, which all enhances the public daily life.

59 Another project of Metropolitan Municipality is to construct a new train station building. The project proposes the construction of a new train station near the existing one. The building of the new high-speed train terminal seems to create a significant obstacle for the historic train station building‘s silhouette, function and identity in Ankara. The new train terminal is planned to be a new attraction centre, including commercial activities, a shopping mall, stores, hotels and offices. The project proposes the conversion of the historic building of the train station and its guest house into a high-quality hotel, convention centre with large conference halls. 60 The monument of Hittite Sun Disc with deer figures, designed by Nusret Suman, started to be constructed after the mid-1970s and opened in 1978. 81

Figure 37.Hittite Monument, Eller Sculpture and Havuz Fıskiyesi in Sıhhiye region Source: Personal Archive

These sculptures are not only important because they are some significant examples of the first national public artworks, but they were also constructed after the 50th anniversary of proclamation of the Republic. Lozan Square and Abdi Ġpekçi Park61 including the public artworks have significant symbolic meanings for Ankara. The Havuz Fıskiyesi and Eller Sculptures symbolize the persistence and modernity of the Republican revolution, while the monument of Hittite Sun Disk refers to Anatolian pre-historic period acting as a means to reveal repressed histories and identities of Ankara. The monument of Hittite Sun Disk is created significance in Lozan Square by contributing to the meaning of the place. Likewise, the symbol of Hittite Sun Disk had been used as Ankara‘s city emblem for eighteen years until it was ebolished by the municipality62. A modern Anatolian capital city which used the

61 Abdi Ġpekçi is a Turkish journalist who became an important political figure in the Republican history. He was assassinated in 1979. After his murder, the name of the park in Sıhhiye was given in 1981, during the 1980 military coup, as one of the reasons of this coup d‘état was the rise of assassination attempts. After the military coup, the park and Lozan Square became important public space in Ankara with their political and symbolic meanings. Because Kızılay Square has been closed to political demonstrations and protest since the beginning of the 1990s, the park and Lozan Square have been used as one of the major gathering places of Ankara. 62 A symbolic graphic of ―Hittite Sun Disc‖ decided to be used as the emblem of Ankara Municipality by the municipal council when Vedat Dalokay was the mayor between 1973 and 1977 (Özer, 2003). The Hittite Sun Disc had been Ankara‘s emblem between the years 1977 and 1995, but the Metropolitan Municipality‘s City Council decided to change Ankara‘s emblem in 28 June 1995 (Özer, 2003). In the new emblem there exists two minarets and a dome of a mosque, the dome also represents Atakule (the shopping mall which is going to be explained in the section 3.2.4.1.) on top of them there exists 3 stars and in the bottom a crescent and a star exists. This emblem shows the conservative and nationalist perspective of the AMM. In 1995, the removal of the Ankara emblem, which has been used for years, aroused disputes on the public opinion. Since then, there 82 symbol of one of the first civilizations in Anatolia as an emblem is comprehended as the nation respects and claims its history, enlightenment and development. However, since accepting the symbol of Hittite Sun Disk as the emblem of the city and the construction of the monument by the municipality became subject to discussions by the conservatives defending that it refers not to Turkish history63, but the Anatolian pre-historic period. In 1995, the symbol of Hittite Sun Disk as the emblem of Ankara was changed by the Mayor Gökçek, justifying that the new emblem including the figures of Atakule in middle of ‘s Minarets symbolizes and promotes Ankara better. This attitude of the Metropolitan Municipality took reaction, aroused disputes and subject to several lawsuits against up to the present. These disputes on the emblem of Ankara, the capital city of the Turkish Republic, are important since they have activated the institutions sensitive to the country‘s problems to take part in these discussions.

Figure 38. The Hittite emblem of Ankara before 1995, the emblem after 1995 and the new emblem in 2011, the smiling cat logo of Ankara in 2010 and the new logo in 2011. Source: (Kanal a Haber, 2011), (soL-haber merkezi, 2011)

After the change of Hittite Sun Disk emblem, the Municipality did not internalize the monument and the monument of Hittite Sun Disk was also subject to removal in 1995 by the act of Metropolitan Municipality. However, the removal of the monument couldn‘t be realized because it was taken under protection as a ―monument‖ by the Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board in 1995 (Cumhuriyet, 1995). have been a number of court cases to bring back the Hittite Sun Disc as the emblem of the city. For instance in 1995, 2nd Anministrative Court annulled the emblem of minarates however inorder to remove the legal barrier a change in the law which gives municipalities the authority to determine the city‘s emblem so the new emblem started to be used again (Özer, 2003). The Council of State, in 2007, following the cancellation of the previous minaret city emblem decided that the "Hittite Sun" emblem should be returned (Gürel(HürriyetAnkara), 2010). Following the decision of the court and council of the state that revoked the emblem with Atakule and Mosque, AMM did not realize a project for Ankara‘s emblem. However, AMM proposed and started to use a promotional logo for Ankara in 2010 (as they explained this is not an emblem, it is a logo for Ankara that is used in cultural activities of AMM) which is known as Smiling Ankara Cat logo. In 2011, the city council decided a new logo which is the same figure with moustache by majority of votes (Kanal a Haber, 2011). In 2011, the emblem of Ankara is cancelled again by the 3rd Administrative Court and Hititte emblem is proposed to be used by AMM. However, by using the municipality‘s authority to determine the amblem this time the council of AMM determines almost the same emblem with minor modifications (soL, 2011). The new emblem has the same figures of minarets, Atakule, crescent and stars, but this time on top of the figures there exists 5 stars which represents Turkish history by symbolizing the capitals of the Turkish states in Anatolia (soL-haber merkezi, 2011). The case of the emblem of Ankara is a project that disturbed the collective memory of the public. 63 The symbol is perceived as symbol of Pre-Islamic and pre-Turkish Anatolian history. 83

Public art, as an important element in the city, should be in close contact with the public so that the public can experience it in their everyday life. However in Ankara as a result of the wrong planning and road design decisions, the accessibility of several public artworks decreased. The rearrangements of Atatürk Boulevard have important effects on Ankara‘s significant public spaces and public art elements sited along the Boulevard. Especially the high-density traffic on Atatürk Boulevard and the road rearrangements in Sıhhiye district including U-turn Bridge in 1997 and Sıhhiye Bridge affected public spaces and the symbolic sculptures it includes. Especially the rearrangement including the U-turn bridge which is constructed within the aim of only reorganizing the vehicle traffic has undermined the existing characteristic of Lozan Square and Abdi Ġpekçi Park, and consequently, has affected the identity and function of the environment by changing the spatial characteristics and publicness of the square, the park and the public artwork.

Figure 39.The view of Hittite Sun disk and park area before the constructions of bridges from old postcards Source:

The rearrangement including the U-turn bridge also affected the legibility and accessibility of the monument and the sculptures including Eller and Havuz Fıskiyesi. As a result of the rearrangement, the relation between the two sides of the Boulevard is interrupted for pedestrians in Sıhhiye area. The connection of Abdi Ġpekçi Park to the square was disrupted by both the barriers of the bridges and barriers for pedestrians. The monument of Hittite Sun Disk is surrounded by high-density vehicular flows of Atatürk Boulevard makes the monument inaccessible for pedestrians. The monument is a significant symbolic landmark considering the silhouette of the city and continuity of Atatürk Boulevard. However, the U- turn Bridge changed the pedestrian and vehicle traffic, affected aesthetics of Lozan Square and it affected the silhouette of the monument in the city through the boulevard‘s perspective. The monument of Hittite Sun Disk is stuck in the middle of high-density traffic. As it was surrounded by barriers in order to protect the artwork from people preventing them to touch or harm the monument, it is not physically accessible either (Hürriyet, 2008). However the monument is situated in a traffic junction point hence it may

84 get the highest harm from traffic accidents and pollution (which would increase more as the traffic flow increases).

Figure 40.Sıhhıye u-turn bridge, Hittite Sun Disk and Abdi Ġpekçi Park Source: (wowturkey, n.d.) and personal archive

3.2.2.5. Zafer Square and the Monument of Marshall Atatürk

Zafer (―Victory‖) Square64 is another symbolic place for Ankara together with the Monument of Marshall Atatürk65 which is situated on a rectangular basein middle ofAtatürk Boulevard. Zafer Square was planned in the first plans of Ankara, together with the two symmetrical urban parks which frame two sides of the monument (after Atatürk Boulevard). One of the parks still exists as an urban park called Zafer Park and the other park across the Atatürk Boulevard transformed into an underground bazaar called Zafer

64 The spatial structure of Zafer Square was planned in Lörcher Plan (1924-25) which was the first plan of Ankara. In the plan, Zafer Square, as a part of the sequence of squares along Atatürk Boulevard, was planned as a social and cultural public space and defined with buildings of cinema and theatre on its two sides (Ġlkay, 2007). Zafer Square had been a ceremonial and political arena together with ceremonial structure. 65The sculpture was designed in 1927 byPietro Canonica. The Monument of Marshall Atatürk portrayed Atatürkas a victorious commander wearing military uniform together with victory wreaths at the base of the statue onAtatürk Boulevard. The monument has four torches located in its corners to be burned in memorial ceremonies and commemoration days. 85

Bazaar in which cultural and artistic activities occurred and on which the ground once used as a public gathering area with landscape elements. The Monument of Marshall Atatürk has a significant commemorative function; four torches are located in the corners of the monument to be burned in commemorative ceremonies. The Monument of Marshall Atatürk as a landmark complete with Zafer Square had been a significant social, political66 and recreational gathering area combining it with the specialized commercial and cultural activities in Zafer Bazaar. However, Zafer Square as a whole is shattered and started to lose its unity in urban environment and square together with its integral elements started to lose its characteristics and identity as a result of interventions67.

Figure 41. Zafer Square and Atarürk Boulevard in 1930s and after the construction of Zafer Bazaar in 1970s Source: (wowturkey) and (Büktel, 2009)

Since the 1990s, the Metropolitan Municipality have not had any project for Zafer Square. The square has been left to its own fate. In 2006, several plans were prepared for Zafer Square by the attempt of Metropolitan Municipality (Ayoğlu, 2010). The current situation of the area is still not clear. In 2011, Çankaya Municipality proposed a project for Zafer Square to be implemented together with the Metropolitan Municipality. Five different projects were prepared. One of the project proposals suggests to reveal the square‘s public space by making a modern square design which would be created by common use of the areas of both sides of the monument: Zafer Park under the ÇankayaMunicipality‘s responsibility and the public-open space of Zafer Bazaar under the Metropolitan Municipality‘s responsibility (UlaĢım Online, 2011). Although Çankaya Municipality suggested carrying out the project together with the metropolitan municipalities, the Metropolitan Municipality objected to the project. As a consequence of the conflict of

66Zafer Square together with the monument was one of the significant focal points of social protes tand rally hosted especially after 1960,the rising opposition of organized social movements (Ġlkay, 2007). As Kızılay is closed for political and social actions since the 1990s, the square cannot carry out its old significant function (Ayoğlu, 2010). 67 Zafer Monument remained isolated by roads starting from the interventions of widenning the traffic lanes of the boulevard in 1950s. 86 authorities and functions in Zafer square68, interventions realized by different local authorities in parts of the square affected its characteristics as a whole and the elements it includes.

Zafer Square with Monument of Marshall Atatürk in the middle of Atatürk Boulevard now has shattered and lost its feature as a result of planning and traffic interventions of local authorities on the square and also on Atatürk Boulevard. First, the interventions on Atatürk Boulevard have an important effect on square‘s loss of unity and monument‘s legibility, accessibility and therefore its publicness. Once Atatürk Boulevard was the main social artery of the city with different aspects of public use both situational and random activities inside. Now, it has almost become a highway that cuts the city centre into two with high traffic density and high-speed. The vehicle-based development through the boulevard has an important affect on the legibility, accessibility of the Monument of Marshall Atatürk and therefore its publicness. The public ground of Zafer Bazaar is now used as car park and taxi stand69, and the pedestrian link between the two public areas and the monument reduced to pedestrian pass on traffic light control. The heavy traffic decreases the random movement of pedestrians. The only way to access the public artwork is to walk across by traffic light. Even if you access to it, the two sides (back and front) are used as the transition for pedestrians to pass across the boulevard and on the other side there exists no public ground except from the vehicle road on which public can experience the public artwork (also there exists no annotation on sculpture that explains a short history of its existence, sculptor or its date).

68 The two public spaces‘ control belongs to different municipalities; Zafer Park belongs to CankayaMunicipality and the public-open space of Zafer Bazaar belongs to Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. Zafer Bazaar was also an important social, cultural centre, including an art gallery and book stores that serve the artists, writers and citizens of Ankara (Ayoğlu, 2010). The art gallery which was owned by the Metropolitan Municipality has been subsidized by Ministry of Culture for a long time. It changed hands in 1994 and now the gallery has been used for Metropolitan Municipality‘s exhibitions (PektaĢ, 1999). This alternation affected the content and function of the gallery. After the military coup d'état in 1980, most bookstores in Zafer Bazaar were closed; and after the 1990s, the bazaar started to become an average shopping centre in the city centre. The public area‘s function has also been changed and now it is used as a car park and taxi station area for the users of bazaar. The function and the identity of the bazaar changed with respect to the Metropolitan Municipality‘s interventions. 69 In 2011, the samples of the new taxi stations were displayed first in Zafer Square (Mimdap, 2009). The square became subject to Metropolitan Municipality‘s taxi stand project which created a different function for the square and reduced its publicness. 87

Figure 42.Monument of Marshall Atatürk in Zafer Square Source: (Birharf, 2011)

Besides the high floored developments, the high density traffic on both sides of the boulevard affect the square‘s and its integral element‘s legibility. The bus stops create an edge for the monument from the Zafer Park region. Zafer Bazaar‘s plain visuality is now fully occupied with advertisements and billboards which disrupt the legibility of public space of the bazaar and the Monument of Marshall Atatürk from the Zafer Park perspective.

Figure 43.The existing situation of Zafer Bazaar with cars and advertisement billboards Source: (Ergir, Doğum Yılı 1917, n.d.)and Personal Archive

As a consequence of the interventions on Zafer Square that undermined the existing identity and symbolic meanings of the place, the square has lost its spatial integrity. The monument has become a neglected urban ornament with a restricted access because of high traffic and the landscape elements. The physical and visual interconnection of the monument with the square is fragmented.

3.2.2.6. Güvenpark and the Monument of Güvenlik

Güvenpark has been a significant public space in Kızılay. The monument of Güvenlik (‗security‘), situated in Güvenpark, depicts Turkish nation's trust in the police and gendarmerie. Both Güvenpark and the monument were designed by Holzmeister as a part of his integrated plan on Bakanlıklar (Ministries) area (that starts from Güvenpark and ends

88

Grand National Assembly of Turkey) in Kızılay. The monument, which was planned within a symbolic space, expresses the magnificence of the Republic‘s history.

Figure 44.Güvenpark (and Kızılay Park) along with Atatürk Boulevard in 1930s and 1940s Source: (Tunçer, 2010)

Güvenpark and the monument have constituted a significant place in the Republican history. However, in the 1970s, almost the half of the park‘s area was converted into a public transportation hub for buses and minibuses. After the 1980s, the monument and its surroundings started to lose its significance because of continuous building and road works (Ertuna, 2005). Güvenpark and the monument of Güven became a ‗first-degree natural protection area‘70 through the decision of the Ankara Committee for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1994 (TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası, 2005). In the same period, a lawsuit was finalised and the court came up with a decision of removing the minibus and bus stations in the Güvenpark area through the support of the same committee (TMMOB ġehir Plancıları Odası, 2003). The Metropolitan Municipality, however, has not attempted to remove the minibus and bus stations to another area. Furthermore they prepared new projects for the site that were to affect potentially the natural values and assets of the park. One of the project was an urban design project of underground station and shopping centre which became the subject of a lawsuit and objected by the court in 200871 (TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası, 2005).

70 ‗First-degree natural protection sites‘ are the areas that have a universal value in terms of scientific preservation, have interesting qualities and beauties. These sites are natural protection zone for the public interest, as they contain rare natural assets and values. These areas have to be protected exactly the same feature except for scientific studies and now act that would devastative or affect the area‘s flora, topography, silhouette can occur (TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası, 2005). 71 The project of constructing an underground shopping center below the park dates back to mid-1990s. 89

Figure 45.Monument of Güven in Güvenpark Source: Personal Archive

After the construction of Ankara‘s metro station in Kızılay, the careless design and construction of both metro station entrances and ventilating shafts around the park negatively affected the visual quality of and access to the Monument of Güvenlik (Batuman, 2009). Both Kızılay Square72 and Güvenpark which were designed as social meeting and gathering spaces have lost their public space characters. Kızılay Square has turned from social spaces into a highly controlled crossroad for vehicular and pedestrian traffic due to the recent renovation project of Atatürk Boulevard. The relation between two sides of the boulevard has been reduced because of the new barriers on the median. The only ways of connecting both sides of the boulevard are through the metro station‘s underpasses and pedestrian bridges. The new renovation project of Atatürk Boulevard has neglected pedestrian mobility and accessibility. It has resulted in the weakening of urban public life. It has also led to discontinuous pedestrian walkways which have reduced pedestrians‘ accessibility to Güvenpark and the monument. Billboards, incompatible architecture and improper lightening around Kızılay Square are also other visual factors which have reduced the accessibility and publicness of Güvenpark and the monument.The spatial transformation leads to visual and symbolic access of the space to diminish; subways have oriented pedestrians to pass underground and have couraged vehicles to pass faster through the Square, which resulted in the space to be perceived as if it had been a junction.

Güvenpark has also become an insecure place because of its poor lightening. The park has been protected by security guards for a while. In 2010, the Metropolitan Municipality prepared a renovation project for Güvenpark. The project has been introduced to the public under the title of ―Visual Show in Güvenpark‖, claiming that Güvenpark would be completely renovated by the Municipality (Gökçek, 2010). The project proposes the renovation of the pools, sidewalk pavements, landscape elements and lightening of the park. It is claimed that Güvenpark would gain a ―completely new face‖ and would create a

72 Deterioration of the spatial organisation of Kızılay Square started with a series of spatial policies in the late- 1970s and continued by means of the new interventions. 90

―secure‖73 place for the public with colourful light shows, new visual and active sprinklers, pavement elements and environmental regulations (Gökçek, 2010). (Gökçek M. , 2010)

Figure 46. The night view of Güvenpark and Kızılar Square after the renovation; the sculptures are not lightened but the pools are Source: (Gökçek M. , 2010)

The renewal project of Güvenpark, however, has not had any action towards restoring or protecting the Monument of Güven and other natural assets of the park. The lightening scheme within this project seems to be one of the best decisions to improve the security and safety of the park. The project also suggests the colourful lightening of the pool and its surroundings which might be competing with the visuality of the Monument. Also, in 2011, the Metropolitan Municipality redesigned and renewed the pool of the park with newer and higher sprinklers which are able to carry out water dance shows that can be performed day and night time in Güvenpark (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). The project, however, has a very shallow approach to the problems of Güvenpark. It seeks to beautify the park through the lightening and water shows, while it has not addressed several important problems of this public space, such as the needs to protect natural and historic heritage of the park, to find out solutions for the chaotic minibus and bus stations which endanger pedestrians and passengers‘ safety, or to turn Güvenpark into a more social and safe public space by peopling the place during day and night time. Besides these interventions that beautify the pool with water shows, visual and active sprinklers do not respect the visual characteristics by diminishing the Güvenlik Monument‘s legibility from both sides. The visuality of the monument is prevented by the high water shows in the pools. These interventions effected the perception of public artwork in Güvenpark.

73 Even if it is expressed that after project the place became a secure place the security guards are still protecting the area. 91

Figure 47. The visuality of water shows of the pools in day and night Source: (Gökçek M. , 2010)

The Monument of Güvenlik in Güvenpark area has derived its publicness from its engagement with citizens enriching public life and forms its historical background compromises collective values, cultural patterns of a nation that marked out the civic life of Ankara. But, it started to lose its main identity. A different ideological socialization started to occur in the park after the mid-1990s. Batuman (2009) claims that the ideologies that are manifested in suburbs of Ankara are also started to be observed in the city centre; mainly in its public spaces. The identity of the public spaces has been trying to change by creating new public uses promoting Islamic traditions. In this ideology, the Republican symbols become the main targets. For example, since 1997, AMM set up an iftar tent in Güvenpark area during Ramadan. The citizens who take their iftar meals use not only the tent, but also the open spaces in the park. Batuman (2009) explains that such events defined around a religious ritual show the appropriation of public space by legitimising Islamic identity. Güvenpark which used to symbolically represent the Republican capital is used for Islamic purposes. As the social usage of public spaces changes, the collective memory of places also starts to change. Thus, the usage of Güvenpark for Islamic rituals will certainly change its perception by the public and ultimately its collective image which represents for its users. One should also note that, the temporal iftar tents also become a visual obstacle for the perception of the monument.

92

Figure 48. Ġftar tent in Güvenpark in Ramadan Period Source: (taĢıma dünyası, 2011)

Beside temporal iftar tent, there are other temporal installations in Güvenpark. One of the recent ones is the giant gorilla sculpture surrounded by security barricade (with the Metropolitan Municipality‘s emblem on its shoulders). The sculpture was installed by the Municipality in 2010 in the middle of Güvenpark for a national holiday for children (23 April National Independence and Children's Festival) (Odatv, 2010) For some children and people, it was perceived rather scary. Nevertheless, it is questionable why this kind of a symbol (especially for a national holiday representing the opening of Grand Assembly of the Republic) was used to welcome Children‘s Festival without organising an event in Güvenpark (Odatv, 2010).

Figure 49. The giant gorilla installation with barriers in Güvenpark in 2010 Source: (Odatv, 2010)

Beside the temporary events (such as Iftar tents with a dominant Islamic identity), popular music concerts (when sometimes the performers use the Monument of Güven as a performance stage or as a place to locate speakers and amplifiers) disregard and undermine the identity of Güvenpark and the monument, as well as their publicness. Using the public space of Güvenpark like an empty area or like a tribune for activities affects the collective memory of the place and the monument, and ultimately may lead to lose its symbolic and spatial meaning.

93

Furthermore, the Municipality has started to install giant screens and billboards74 on the main boulevards and squares of the city centre. These electronic screens and billboards, publishing news and advertisements75 through lightened, colourful, motile images, create a chaotic look and visual pollution, by defacing and closing the appearance of the main elements of the boulevard, including the public artworks. Unfortunately, the Municipality has not shown any effort to make the Republican public artworks to be seen as much as these electronic screens or billboards, or the temporary installations.

To sum up, the projects of the AMM for the Güvenpark area have not attempted to find out genuine solutions for this area‘s major problems. They have not been related to the conservation of such an important green space with natural and cultural heritage. Contrarily, the projects have been concerned with the renewal of the pools and their sprinklers and lightening as a part of the aesthetic improvement of the public space or the installation of the temporary structures or popular figures which undermine the place identity of Güvenpark. All these examples show how the Metropolitan Municipality has not cared about the public spaces of Ankara and their identity. With the shallow projects, AMM have not tried to solve the major planning problems of these places, but they have rather led to blur the symbolic meanings and images of these public spaces in the mind of the society.

3.2.3. Approaches on Creating New Public Artworks in New or Existing Public Spaces

Since 1994, Metropolitan Municipality did not created significant projects based on public art however the prestige projects realized by the municipality included different kinds of public art elements that affected the public spaces of Ankara. The approaches of AMM on creating new public artworks in new or existing public spaces is discussed within three topics including AMM‘s public art preferences, public art approaches in new parks and along main boulevards and arteries.

3.2.3.1. Ankara Metropolitan Municipality’s public art preferences

Ankara Metropolitan Municipality has not had a substantive and holistic public art policy for the public spaces of Ankara. Municipality‘s interventions have been partial.

74The giant screens also distract drivers. Because they are generally located in the medians of the boulevards -in middle of traffic-, it is argued that their places are not complying with traffic laws and regulations. In 2008, some organizations get in touch with Ankara Metropolitan Municipality and the Ministry of the Interior Affairs for the removal of these screens and billboards. However most of them still exist in their places (ĠHA, 2008). 75It is emphasized that these screens and billboard are mainly used for commercial purposes (i.e., a significant revenue for the Municipality) rather than for beautifying the public places (ĠHA, 2008). 94

Nevertheless, it is possible to come to certain conclusions about AMM‘s strategies and preferences on creating public artworks by investigating its interventions. Since the mid- 1990s, AMM mainly provided similar types of public artworks for the public spaces of Ankara, which are not specially designed inconsideration with the locations, characters, identities or publicness of these public spaces.

AMM preferred both temporary and permenant installations. The examples of temporary artwork generally include decorations with soft landscape elements, decorative water pools and water jets, events in public spaces, new-generation artworks, such as lightening and sound schemes, and billboard displays (used for advertisements). Decorative soft landscape elements are used in parks, open spaces, boulevards, refuges of the city. Sculptures, various soft landscaping elements, and even the new AMM logo are used as decorative figures76.

Figure 50.Landscape motifs and decorations in Balgat crossroad, Kızılay crossroad and Altınpark Source: (Anfa Altınpark, n.d.)

Figure 51.The promotional logo of Ankara (with graphic of Agora cat) which is designed with landscape elements in different public spaces including; Dikmen Valley, EskiĢehir Road, Göksu Park Source: Personal Archive

Likewise, decorative water pools, water jets, and artificial waterfalls are used almost in every public space projects (including squares, parks, open spaces, roadsides, junctions and

76 As mentioned before, the emblem of Ankara is an important matter of AMM since 1994. After the acceptance of the new promotional logo by city council, installing of the logo in significant public spaces of Ankara shows the hegemonic power of AMM to make it internalized by citizens. 95 refuges) to create ―aesthetical appereance and for softening the climate‖, as Mayor expresses (Mimdap, 2007). Water is a significant element that would be harmonized with significant urban elements together including its characteristics like liquidity, phonetic, reflectivity, colourfulness, lightness and softness. However, the water features created by AMM are criticized because of their standardized design for all public spaces, lack of aesthetics, lack of publicness77 and also containing the Islamic identity. Also, lightening, music and water jet shows are used as the subsidiary public art elements in each public space project of AMM, like in the renewal projects (Güvenpark, Gençlik Parkı), new prestige parks, and new recreational projects (GökkuĢağı and Samanyolu).

As for permenant installations, AMM generally locate similar public artworks in different public spaces of Ankara. In this sense, these public artworks do not emphasize or contribute to the unique character of the places. They are not specifically designed for these locations. Therefore, they are not an integrated part of these locations. These examples are decorative ‗site-general‘ elements (as Miles (1997) expresses), including the sculptures of animal figures -like horses, bulls, goats, cows etc. The prestige parks that are created by AMM, such as Dikmen Valley, Göksu Park and other recreational areas (like Samanyolu Recreational Area) generally include these kinds of artworks with animal figures. For instance, in 2011, the Mayor announced in the re-opening ceremony of Samanyolu Recreational Area (which is going to be explained in detail in the next topic) that they would import a large number of and horse sculptures from China to locate different recreational areas of Ankara (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011).

Besides, AMM has opted to locate especially the figures of Angora goat, rabbit and cat –the three animals symbolically representing Ankara- all over the public spaces to promote the identity of the city. The Ankara goat sculptures were started to be placed before mid-1990s. These examples were stylized and abstract figures of Angora goat (known as An-ki) and they still exist in public spaces of Ankara even if most of them are damaged. After mid- 1990s, different than these abstract figures, realish approach and non-abstract figures that create pastoral scenes are used in the design of the goat sculptures. The choice of realish figures by AMM since 1994 are controversary with the abstract approaches for public artworks in previous periods of municipality that revealed and enhanced abstract perspective in art, urban culture and local identity in Ankara.

Generally these goat figures are mass-producted standardized realistic sculptures and artistic concerns are stayed background. For instance, in 2000, the Mayor ordered 100

77 Also wasting a significant amount of water which is a critical problem for Ankara since 2007 (Mimdap, 2007). 96 bronze Ankara goat sculptures from abroad and these identical goat figures were installed in different public spaces (such as roadsides, green sides of major crossroads and some parks, like the parks of and Göksu Park) regardless their locations, identities and characteristics (Hızlan/Hürriyet, 2000). Even though AMM seeks to promote one of the ―symbols‖ of Ankara by installing Angora goats in public spaces, this symbol becomes an ordinary element among the citizens due to their endless use in inappropriate places without integrating the identity of these micro spaces. This is also stated by Necmettin Yağcı as follows:

―...the sculptures have to harmonise with the environment and the place with its physical form and material... artworks should be in every street; but they should be created specifically to contribute to the spatial identity. However, Metropolitan Municipality‟s artworks in Ankara are ordinary and tasteless‖ (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2006).

Figure 52. The an-ki sculptures of Ankara which had abstract interpretations of Ankara goat Source: (Ankara Heykelleri, 2007), (Birharf, 2011)

Figure 53.Goat sculptures located in Sıhhiye multiplex car park area, Tandoğan and Dikmen. Source: (Ankara Heykelleri, 2007), (Birharf, 2011)

97

In addition to the use of these symbolic animal figures as sculptures, they are also used as the figures for clayworks to decorate the walls of motorway overpasses or bridges (See: the examples on EskiĢehir Road in Section 3.2.3.2. ii.). Besides, the figure of Angora cat, which is used as Ankara‘s cultural emblem, also used as the mascot of the first International Children‘s Sport Plays78 in 2011. These 2.5 meter identical sculptures were located temporarily in most of the open spaces of Ankara including squares, main boulevards, and roadsides.

Figure 54.The mascot of the first International Children‘s Sport Plays located in different public places of Ankara. Source: http://anfaengerwriter.blogspot.com/2011/07/ankara-ve-segmen-kediler.html and personal archive

Since 1994, only certain historical images of Ankara have been emphasized in the AMM‘s projects, while many other historical and cultural images have been undermined. As mentioned before, although Ankara is a city with a long history including manhy civilizations, over the last 17 years, primarily Seljuk and Ottoman identities79 of the city have been promoted in urban projects. This is not only the strategy or attitude of AMM, but also other district municipalities of this conservative party. It is possible to observe many architecture and artworks projects simulating Seljuk and Ottoman architecture in Ankara80.

78 The international organization is realized together by AMM and the General Directorate of Youth and Sports. 79Seljuk and Ottoman Period are the Islamic periods of Ankara. 80 For instance, the new headquarter of Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) which was designed and decorated in so-called Seljuk style was opened in Ankara in 2007. The Prime Minister, Erdoğan, who is also the chairman of this political party, stated that they took such a step because Ankara was a center of Seljuk‖ (Arkitera, 2007). He also added: ―There was no trace of a Seljuk architecture representative in Ankara. In this way, the capital, gained a building (which is represented as a monument) bearing the traces of 98

In some specific project and interventions of AMM on public spaces, a specific so called Seljuk and Ottoman style come into prominence in the public artworks, designworks, and decorative elements. For instance; as explained in the section 3.2.2.2., the designworks like the new Ulus gate, pavements and figurative light shows at night in Gençlik Parkı are created using so called ‗Seljuk Style‘ of decoration harmonised with modern style. Also, the cultural buildings are redesigned with the harmony of Seljuk and Ottoman architectural styles and motifs by using modern and technological methods (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2009). Another example is the Semazen (Whirling dervish) Sculpture which is located on top of the pedestrian overpass in Mevlana Boulevard81 that was created by AMM. The tower like structures (actually elevators on which the sculptures located) and the decorative elements were designed using the so called Seljuk style and motifs (See: the Section 3.2.3.2.iv for the detail of the project).

Also, the Seljuk and Ottoman identities come into forefront in the redevelopment projects and proposed renewal projects of AMM. For instance, in 2009, Prime Minister Erdoğan asked the Mayor to create one of the city gates with the simulation of Seljuk architecture. This city-gate, project was included in the North Ankara Entrance Urban Transformation Project (NAEUTP) which has been a prestige project for AMM (Ġnternet Haber, 2009). TOKĠ (The Housing Development Administration of Turkey) -the executer institution of the project- and the Mayor expressed that the facades of some buildings (which would be sited close to Protocol Highway) would be designed with respect to Seljuk and Ottoman architectural style and historic traces (TOKĠ Haber, 2011; Haber2000, 2011).

The same strategy and attitude have been used for other proposed new projects. Prime Minister Erdoğan claimed that ‗Ankara was a Seljuk city with all aspects‘82 and introduced the prestige projects for Ankara before the general elections in 2011 (Tartanoğlu/Cumhuriyet, 2011). AMM proposed a new project to create a new townscape

Seljuk architecture‖ (Milliyet, 2007). It is also noted that the 8-angled star motifs which is used to decorate the building are the examples of Seljuk motifs which represent ―justice‖ (Arkitera, 2007). Estergon Castle, which has become a landmark and symbol in Keçiören District, is a new recreational and ―cultural‖ (religion- based cultural) center. It is another example which is built by Keçiören Municipality (which is also managed by Justice and Development Party) in 2000. The building‘s architecture and name is inspired from the original Esztergom Castle in Hungary (which was a critical location for Ottoman Empire). The body of the main building (a 8-angled tower) inspired from the Kızıl Kule in which was constructed by Seljuk Sultan Alaaddin Keykubat (Estergon Kalesi, 2010). The architecture and decorations of the building, including the gate (and the motifs on it), mainly represent Seljuk style. The cultural center is also a version of Karatay Medresa in Konya which was constructed by Seljuks (Estergon Kalesi, 2010). Another example where the Seljuk style was used is the watch tower in Keçiören. The motives of Ulu Mosque and DarüĢĢifa in were used on this watch tower (Hürriyet, 2008). 81 Mevlana Boulevard combines with Konya Road which is the Ankara‘s enterance from Konya where Mevlana lived and died in Seljuk period. 82 Tartanoğlu expressed that even if there are Seljuk heritage (which is even less than the Roman artifacts) in the city; the heritage of Republican period dominates the identity of Ankara (Tartanoğlu/Cumhuriyet, 2011). 99 in Kızılay by covering the facades of the buildings by using Seljuk architecture83 to give a new identity for Kızılay (which is going to be discussed in the Section 3.2.4.1.iii). In this sense this project aims to replace the identity of Kızılay - YeniĢehir (―new city‖), the new city centre which was planned in the early-Republican period to create a modern city and city life, with a so-called Seljuk identity.

3.2.3.2. Public Art Approaches in new Parks

AMM has not had a holistic strategy covering all open space network of the city. Its projects have been more area-based, and the interventions have been partial. As explained earlier in the examples of Güvenpark, Gençlik Parkı and Altınpark, the interventions of AMM on the major urban parks affected the existing characteristics and identities of the parks and the public artworks within them. Since 1997, AMM also constructed new parks, such as Göksu Park, Harikalar Diyarı (―Wonderland‖), Dikmen Valley, and Mogan. None of them has been planned as a part of an integrated strategy towards the city‘s open space and public space network. These new parks, which are located in the city‘s periphery are not publicly very accessible by the whole Ankara citizens due to the insufficient public transport services. Likewise, they have been generally planned to attract investments to its environs and have acted as the catalysts for urban transformation projects84.

Dikmen Valley Project85 (DVP) in South Ankara is a good example, in this sense. It was one of the major prestige projects of social democrat municipality (1989-1993), aiming to clear squatters in the site and to develop housing, office and social facilities, and to reclaim the valley as a breathing corridor of the city by creating an urban park and a recreational area for Ankara. The first and second phases of the project was carried out by the social democrat municipality, while the third, fourth and fifth phases have been led by the current AMM. With DVP86, the valley was transformed into an urban park with its strong visual

83 Dr. Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, the author of the book ‗Cities and Towns‘, argues that ―Seljuks followed a nomadic lifestyle and did not have a specific architectural style. They adopted the architectural style of the places they lived, including the Armenian, Byzantine and Syrian, and in the south Arabic architecture‖ (TMOBB ġehir Plancıları Odası, 2011). 84 AMM, after the mid-1990s, left its mark in all the new prestige areas via the urban transformation and urban development projects. 85 The construction of DVP is still continuing with 4th and 5th phases. It should be noted that Mayor Gökçek has taken over the Project when it was already started. The first and second phases are generally seen as successful transformation processes that fulfilled the expectations of the owners, the municipality and the city. But, starting from the 3rd phase, there has been increasing objections and reactions from the home owners (even the founders of Dikmen Valley Community), professionals, oranizations and professional chambers. The public resistance against the Municipality‘s eager to carry on with the project has increased. In 2009, the 4th and 5th phases of the Project were invalidated by the Municipal Council due to the public resistance. Nevertheless, the destructions still continue (Dikmen Vadisi Halkı, 2009). 86 Dikmen Valley has gained a new character with these new development and recreational areas with various design elements, shows and public artworks. The project, besides creating a recreational area, has also led to the development of a high-density built-up area. The high-density housing sites were constructed in order to finance the project itself and increase the rent. The project ended up with a high-density settlement in one of the central 100 and landscape design. Various design elements, shows and public artworks give a new character to this park and recreational areas. The new design of the park has been used as a tool to increase the rent of urban land by the current AMM policies. It is notable that the plans of Dikmen have been revised many times to increase the development rights (including the increase of building density and heights) in the site. The valley itself has become much denser residential site, in contrast to the original plan of the valley. The project turned out to be a rent-based project servicing for luxury housing needs and the urban park has become mainly scenery to increase the real estate value of these expensive and luxury developments.

The strategy of constructing urban parks in the urban peripheries has been used to enhance the decentralization policies which have resulted in rapid urban developments on these corridors and in the peripheries. These recreational areas including big prestige parks, such as Göksu Park near Ġstanbul highway in Eryaman District, Harikalar Diyarı87 between Ġstanbul highway and AyaĢ road in Sincan District (within the north-west development area), Mogan Park in GölbaĢı District (in the southern development area, Mavi Göl Recreational Area (Bayındır Dam) in the western development area can be given as the examples of such urban parks.

These new urban parks have been planned with different visions for the city by AMM and designed with natural and artificial landscaping, urban design elements and public artworks. Parks are decorated with AMM‘s general strategies and preferences on creating public artworks. In addition to general landscape elements these parks are also decorated with motives of colourful flowers including flower terraces, different landscape figures88, decorations together with sculptures and landscape designs.

parts of the city. Even though unauthorized and unhealthy developments (gecekondu housing) were rehabilitated by this project, a healthy development area which regards the topography of the area could not be developed. The project turned out to be a rent-based project servicing for luxury housing needs and the recreational area designed became not a public urban park, but a scenery area for these developments that increases the value of real estate property. Dikmen Valley project became inconsistent and problematic project area in Ankara the urban transformation methodology they used draw reaction from the owners, professionals and also artists. They even showed their reactions with demonstrations, festivals and artistic outcomes. 87Harikalar Diyarı (Wonderland) is the biggest urban theme park of Turkey which has a special artificial island named as Masal (fairytale). It is a specific recreational area for children including different sculptures of famous heroes in children stories, cartoons, animations and their fiction environment. Similar to Göksu Park, there exist sculptures, design works, water jets and water shows (with music) for decorations throughout the park, but this special island, created with a special landscape design and lightening harmonised with the sculptures, generated a special character for the area. As this is a theme park, they used the well-known figures of heroes around the park to make children enjoy and consume. However these assorted figures cannot be expressed as unique and authentic artworks. They create some attention because of their various sizes, colourful appearance and well- known figures for children but these figures do not have a special purpose like education, informing or becoming a public artwork. For years pass, as the sculptures that are lack of aesthetics and do not have a special artistic appearance, they will look old and simple according to the developments and technology. 88 Landscape elements are imitating different figures or the emblem of Ankara as given in the examples in the section 3.2.3.1. 101

Figure 55.Landscape decorations with hardscape elements and sculptures in Dikmen Valley Source: Personal archive

AMM also preferred temporary installations. However, they generally locate similar artworks in different public spaces of Ankara, as explained in the earlier section. These similar decorative ‗site-general‘ elements include the sculptures of animal figures (mainly goats of Ankara, but also horse, bull, cow, gazelle), working rural men and women (with traditional clothes making rural works including farming, milking, picking fruits), and the sculptures integrated with water shows. These similiar sculptures are realized with realish approach and interspersed in different parks for decoration without considering their locations. These sculptures do not emphasize or enhance the unique character of the places where they are displayed. Moreover these mass-produced realish sculptures that imitate pastoral scenes, create a contradiction with the environment they exists (which are generally new development areas) and do not have relevance in the capital city.

Figure 56.The various sculptures that imitates rural life and goat sculptures in Dikmen Valley Source: Personal Archive

102

Figure 57.Sculptures in Göksupark Source: (wowTurkey, 2011)

Water, as natural resources or decorative pools, water jets and artificial waterfalls, have been used in all urban parks. For instance, Mogan Park took its name from Mogan Lake, Göksu Park was designed around Susuz pond, Mavi Göl was planned near Bayındır Dam. Similarly, in Dikmen Valley, water features are used in various parts of the park with different designs, water jets, waterfalls, water dances and different colourful lightening. Water elements in some parts create a powerful modern look. However, as in the example of water travertine which imitates the natural Pamukkale Travertine, some water features in the park lack aesthetics, create an unoriginal, functionless decoration.

Figure 58.The imitated travertines and the landscape writing of municipality in Dikmen Valley Source: wow turkey 2-3 dikmen vadisi

Lightening in the urban parks has not only considered by AMM as a safety issue, but also a design issue to increase their visual and aesthetic attractiveness. In each prestige park, lighting schemes with colours, light projections and light shows together with water jet shows are used to decorate and improve their visual and aesthetic appeal, thereby increasing the public attention. 103

Figure 59.Mogan Lake, Göksu Parkı and Dikmen Valley Source: (wowturkey)

Briefly put, AMM has created its own ‗aesthetic‘ perspective since 1994, and has implemented on the newly developed parks. Rather than commissioning public artworks that would emphasize the unique character of the locations and parks, AMM has opted to use manufactured artworks in the newly developed urban parks. These almost identical artworks, however, do not contribute to the place identity, and do not enrich the public‘s experience on public art. Nevertheless, it is possible to note that AMM has consciously and deliberately promoted its design strategy for such prestige parks to increase the real estate values around these parks, and they seem to be rather successful in this sense.

3.2.3.3. Approaches on creating new public artworks along the Main Boulevards and Arteries

According to Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 (2004), metropolitan municipalities are responsible for constructing, managing and maintaining the major public spaces, including boulevards, avenues and highways. Since 1994, the AMM‘s investments priority on transportation and infrastructure was given to central districts and peripheral

104 development areas of the city due to the significance for reconstruction of the capital. The investment policies of AMM, in addition to Atatürk Boulevard –the main boulevard stretching between the north and south directions-, have been concentrated on the construction of infrastructural facilities in the gateway and development corridors of the city. These new important corridors, which are mainly the enterance highways to the city that interrelate development areas in peripheries with the city, have started to gain specific importance along these investments.

These transportation investments have been predominantly on boulevards, highways and byways to promote vehicle transportation (but, disregarding pedestrian transportation and public transport especially via railway systems). AMM has used similar policies for the main corridors of Ankara and new urban development areas. The policies have been mainly based on creating urban areas with high rents and building high-speed ―prestige‖ roads, embellished with designed soft and hard landscaping elements and public artworks89, so that the vehicle drivers and passengers can enjoy the scenes provided by these roads. These urban design interventions have mainly targetted to decorate and beautify these roads by eliminating the visually unpleasant scenes on such highways, underpasses and bridges. AMM is attempted similar policies to decorate the transportation constructions (including bridges and underpasses), also its unsightly environment and vacant areas that they create; by rearranging the environment with urban design elements, public artworks and design works.

However, these interventions along these main boulevards and arteries have not been produced as a part of holistic and integrated urban transportation policy. They have been rather produced as partial projects which have re-created public space and urban identity through eclectic images. As such, these public spaces and public artworks have been produced (or, designed) without taking into consideration the spatial and environmental potentials of the location, boulevard or the city. The interventions have undermined the existing characteristics and identities.

Public artworks can act as potentials through their accessibility and legibility, their meanings they represent, and also through their collaborative and participatory development process. As such, public art projects may generate public discussions, provide the public involvement and engagement in the public art projects, thereby contributing to the public sphere, promoting community collaboration and empowerment, enhancing public education and encouraging social integration. However, the public artwork projects

89 It can be discussed that these examples whether or not examples of ―art‖ but this work is not aiming to discuss the artistry of works of municipality 105 in Ankara over 17 years have never been used to reveal such potentials. The public has never seen as the contributors of such public artwork projects. The discussions on the public artwork schemes have occurred between AMM and the professionals and professional chambers. Thus, these projects have never provided above-mentioned outcomes. Nevertheless, the public has generally appreciated these projects because of their visual and aesthetic appeal, while these public artworks have not contributed to the identity of the city and their locations through their intended messages.

These arguments are tried to be examplified by the projects and interventions of AMM on the four main urban development corridors; i.e. Atatürk Boulevard, south-western corridor, and southern corridor, in the following sections.

Figure 60.The significant boulevards and corridors of Ankara Source: Personal Renderings

i. Interventions on the Central Spine; Atatürk Boulevard

Atatürk Boulevard is the Central Spine of Ankara that connects the significant squares, public and open spaces with public artworks (as explained in previous section 3.2.2.). The boulevard has also been the central axis of vehicle and pedestrian transportation and central social artery in the city center. However, since the mid-1990s, the existing public spaces

106 and public artworks on Atatürk Boulevard have been affected by the radical interventions, developments, modifications realized on the boulevard and traffic (which are explained in the section 3.2.2.).

As it is mentioned before, Atatürk Boulevard and the squares along the boulevard have been associated with intersections and high speed movements in traffic. The policies of municipality in the Boulevard have been giving priority to vehicle traffic, mainly disregarding pedestrians in the city. As the vehicle traffic increased, some rearrangements including underpasses, bridges, traffic controls are realized in order to overcome the traffic problems and increase the speed of the vehicle transportation. On the other hand, pedestrian movement has been restricted by the rearrangements, including inadequate pedestrian crossings with traffic lights, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses (tunnels) which have not been designed for the accessibility of disabled people, restrictions on the roadsides and refuges for freepasses across the boulevard. For instance, Atatürk Boulevard -starting form Akay Junction till Lozan Square- is rearranged with landscape arrangements, pools, water jets and some visual elements like the clock with landscape elements (in the crossing of Kızılay Square) in the middle of the refuge surrounded with iron chains after 2000. Even if these are designed to decorate the boulevard, the iron limiters restricts the access of pedestrians and public can experience ―the watch decoration‖ only in the crossing of traffic lights in Kızılay Square. Atatürk Boulevard is the main artery of the city with pedestrian mobility; however the two sides of the Boulevard are separated by the crossing restrictions90. These rearrangements with visual decorations do not add a sprit of place and are not designed to strengthen the public spaces but created to enhance the visuality of the Boulevard.

Figure 61.The watch decoration in Kızılay Square on the refuge in front of a pedestrian pass Source: Personal archive

90 As the number of crossings decreased, pedestrians are also forced to use overpasses that are constructed on Atatürk Boulevard and also underpasses of light rail stations. 107

Figure 62.Pedestrian overpass and pools with water jets along Atatürk Boulevard Source: Personal Archive

AMM gave priority to vehicle traffic by constructing underpasses and bridges91 for vehicles that excludes pedestrian access. These bridges were constructed on the intersections of the main avenues and particularly along Atatürk Boulevard, exemplified as the U-shaped Bridge in Sıhhıye, Akay and Kuğulu underpasses92 which created important problems for transportation and urban aesthetics. Therefore AMM has attempted different policies to decorate the underpasses, the unsightly environment and vacant areas that they create; by rearranging the environment with urban design elements, public artworks and design works. The interventions of AMM on bridges and underpasses can be expressed in two groups: i) the interventions on the walls; and ii) the interventions on the ground levels of these constructions.

First, in order to overcome the unsightly construction, AMM implemented specific policies to decorate the supporting walls of the bridges and underpasses. For instance, in Kuğulu Park93 (―the park with swan‖) district the walls of underpass called Kuğulu (―swan‖) is decorated with swan figures. The ―identity‖ of the area has tried to be reflected on the walls by using un-aesthetical swan figures however the spatial development of the area distrupted by the construction (which is also subject to action of closing) and on the other hand the public artworks that were located along the Boulevard (up the place where Kuğulu underpass has constructed) are also affected from the rearrangements of underpasses.

91 The construction of underpasses and bridges has been a characteristic policy of AMM for traffic rearrangements since 1994. Atak (2005) defines these constructions for AMM as ―easy and fast monumental constructions in demand‖. 92 It is important to note that these underpasses were constructed outlawry and have been subject to different lawsuits since they were constructed. 93These kind of decorations occured also in other bridges and underpasses. For insatance Hasköy underpass has decorated with flying bird figures by relief and also in EskiĢehir Road three other underpass have also decorated by Ankara‘s sembolic animals‘ relief works which are going to be explained in further sections. 108

Figure 63. The relief printing of various motifs like swan figures on the wall of Kuğulu Underpass and motifs that narrates the Anatolian stories in the walls of an underpass in Fatih Street Source: Personal Archive and (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011)

In 2011, the walls of underpass were covered with ceramics, granite and marble in order to ―renew and beautify the aesthetical image of the capital‖ (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). While renewing the asphalt and expanding the width of the Boulevard, the underpasses were also ―modernized‖ with different methods. For instance, the underpass called Meteorology Wall in Fatih Street, AMM decorated the walls with relief printing. AMM expressed that ―the implementation aimed to use different motifs in order for drivers to enjoy driving with an expression of driving pleasure in Ankara‖ (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). Municipality also states that vehicles would come across with the ―totally new aesthetical and beautiful outlook of underpass instead of that old shabby look‖ (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). The motifs made by ceramics narrated the Anatolian civilization stories from the history of humanity till Ottoman period (emphasizing the magnificence and power of Seljuk‘s and Ottomans), municipality expresses that citizens that passes from tunnels are going to ―live an incredible history flavour‖ (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). The firm that was commissioned for the ceramic surfacing worked with sculptors aiming to decorate with an artistic style. However the legibility of these artworks is limited for pedestrians and drivers because of the functionality94 of the vehicles and its speed.

Drivers that would pass under the bridge can only see some figures without truly understand these artworks because of the speed they have. On the other hand, there exists no pedestrian access to these bridges. Therefore, the publicness of these artworks is not considered within this perspective. These kinds of works are only created to cope with the unsightly outlook of bridges by using artworks. However, these interventions do not enhance the beauty of urban environment that is distrupted by the heavy constructions which disassociate drivers from the city with walls and unpleasant constructions. This kind

94Lefebvre (1991, p. 313) expresses that ―the driver is concerned in looking about sees only what he needs to see for purpose he thus perceives only his route which has been is materialised, mechanised and technicised and he sees it from one angle only‖. 109 of artworks, which provides eclectic images, does not contribute to the identity of the places, either.

Second, as the underpass constructions regulate the underground traffic they also create vacant areas on the ground level on which AMM implemented projects for different utilizations. Atatürk Square is a significant example for the second group of intervention realized by AMM which is the rearrangement on the ground level of the underpass constructions. Atatürk Square (the monumental arrangement and Akay junction) which is located in the intersection of the main central axis of the city; Atatürk Boulevard and one of the most important development corridor Ġnönü Boulevard- EskiĢehir road95, is an important node today. Atatürk Square is surrounded by Atatürk Boulevard, Turkish Grand National Assembly from the south, Bakanlıklar (The Site of Ministries) from the north region of project area and the main vehicular entrance to city centre from the EskiĢehir Road axis arranged with an underpass in Akay junction in 199896. The area which has a historical, spatial, political97 power but also has problematic situation for Ankara because of the Akay underpass, has been redesigned as a monumental-square with an urban design projectin 200198.

Atatürk Square (the monumental arrangement), the journey of Turkish Republic is abstracted starting from the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire to proclamation and continuity of the Turkish Republic99. Demiralp (2001) explains that the aim of the

95 Concerning its position, project area has been the beginning/ending point of the west corridor that intersects the south/north central axis of Ankara. Ġnönü Boulevard- EskiĢehir Road has been the corridor needed to divert the city centre towards the west. The growing number of private and state institutions, office buildings, residential areas, universities, etc. in the area has turned the corridor into an area of importance for employment with a high traffic flow. 96 The area has been subject to different discussions but mainly because of the Akay underpass that was started to construct in 1998 by Metropolitan Municiplaity finished with the opening of the Atatürk Square design project in 23 April 2001. 97 Atatürk Square is a part of the triangular spine of the city which was thought in Lörcher‘s plan and planned in Jansen Plan the second plan of the capital city of the republic in 1928 (which was entered into force in 1932) (Günay, 2006). In Jansen‘s plan the triangular area constitute of the main axis that connects Güvenpark, Turkish Ministries and in the end the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) (and now bordered by Atatürk Boulevard and Milli Müdafa Street). The plan of area also changed the focus of the governmental and public buildings from Ulus to YeniĢehir. The building for first ministries in Bakanlıklar region (The Site of Ministries) and TBMM located in the triangular spine were designed by Prof. Holzmeister. The area has a representative symbolic meaning for the city and the republic. 98 The urban design project was designed by Promim with Selmi Demiralp (Landscape Architect) and Can Kubin (City Planner) in 1999-2000, and opened in 23rd April 2001 (centenary of national sovereignty day of Turkish Republic). 99 First part of the square starting from the end of underpass abstracts the inertia, ―stagnant and defeatism‖ (acceptation) of the period of Ottoman Empire and square reflects this ―stagnancy‖ with trees inside which blooms in spring abstracts ―awakening‖ (Demiralp, 2001). The second part of the square starts from the end of the first part till the monument expresses the ending of an empire and beginning of the new republic aiming to abstract ―begining, provide cooperation, congresses, convene the first assembly in Ankara, proclamation of the republic‖ (Demiralp, 2001). In this part stepped pools, five different pools that emphasize the national congresses (19 May, Amasya, , Sivas, Ankara Congresses) and trees inside, historical expressions with writings at the borders used to express the scenario. The third part is the monument with triangular prism shape aims to abstract the eternity (life, death and rebirth/renaissance) using the abstract monument as the new millennium, steel as eternity, light and colour as polyphony and democracy along with steel wire as 110 monumental square project is to create a center of attraction in the midpoint by emphasizing monumental square identity and enforcement of imagination by using urban landmark items and abstractions. The square aims to emphasize the identity of the area by using historical items expressing the establishment of Turkish Grand National Assembly, the proclamation of the republic and continuity in the new millennium.

Figure 64. The project view of Atatürk Monument Sources: (Promim Proje, 2011)

Figure 65. The monument of Atatürk square Source: Personal Archive

The project Atatürk Square created a successful monumental square design for the new millennium became a centre of attraction which adds an urban identity to the location however as it is the part of an inaccurate underpass in the city centre which affected spatial characteristics and development of the city center. Hence the project should be discussed within a holistic perspective including the problematic Akay underpass which had lead the emerging of an empty area in the centre of the city for the creation of Atatürk Square. The

trustworthiness (faithfulness). The monument which is a triangular prism on stainless steel columns, abstracts the eternity and enthusiasm also symbolises life, death and regeneration (Demiralp, 2001). The project also created a material integrity using basically two materials; stainless steel and natural stone which is also used in the pavement, pools and seating. Lightening of the project which unifies all the parts with a special design was also suggested for the project but could not be realize even for 10 years later. Municipality rehabilitated and renewed different public spaces but Atatürk Square lacked of lightening untill 2011. 111 underpass which is negatively affected the continuity of central urban axes (continuity tried to be reached by Atatürk Square design); Atatürk Boulevard and also the triangular axes including Güvenpark-TBMM (the Spine of Bakanlıklar), started with a misleading purpose, implemented with no city structural or transportation plan that is in force, has been subject to 4 different lawsuits. The negative role of the underpass in the transformation of city centre still continues. The only positive part in the whole rearrangement of Akay square can be expressed as the Atatürk Square design. It can be seen that the square with its all visual and physical positive attributes became a positive and visual legitimization project for Akay underpass. Demiralp expresses that the Mayor and Metropolitan Municipality‘s aim was to design the square after the construction of the Akay underpass in order to eliminate the criticisms for underpass (Ayoğlu, 2010, p. 104). Atatürk square‘s monumental design was one of the AMM‘s single target project not a part of a structural plan which is designed to beautify and eliminate the Akay underpass‘s visuality, criticisms and problems.

The project is a successful urban design project in Ankara for the new millennium (for its own era), through the creation of a monumental landmark in a significant junction, and design characteristics creating a contemporary abstraction of a history of the nation with orientation in the square, continuity and materials. It can be observed that the aim of creating the continuity of monumental public spaces and also continuity of pedestrian circulation on the central spine; Atatürk Boulevard is successful with a contemporary design. However the continuity of pedestrian circulation is also interrupted by the rearrangement on Atatürk Boulevard. The underpass affects the legibility and visibility of the monument mainly from the Ġnönü Boulevard-EskiĢehir Road side and also from both sides of Atatürk Boulevard. A public art should be accessible in all senses. But the area is surrounded with roads (and underpass) all around and traffic arterial is cutting pedestrian accessibility towards the square. Thus, the area has become a transition zone for citizens not a gathering place that can access people from all around.

Figure 66. View of the Monument from Atatürk Boulevard Source: (kazete, 2011)

112

Project is successful in creating continuity in Atatürk Boulevard however is not successful creating continuity and integrity with the triangular axes including Güvenpark-TBMM (the Spine of Bakanlıklar) because of the Akay Junction (underpass) construction. The project has an aim to provide a unity for the triangular axes including Güvenpark-TBMM with its theme of creating contemporary interpretation of the republic‘s history, however it also disrupts the relation of TBMM with the Spine of Bakanlıklar because of the underpass. As Günay (2006) explains; today in Ankara the only place reminds the European cities is the Spine of Bakanlıklar which is now disrupted by different rearrangements including Güvenpark100, the pedestrian spine which was now closed to general public because of security problems and Akay Junction rearrangements.

ii. Interventions on the South-Western Corridor

The south-westerncorridor, also known as the corridor along Ġnönü Boulevard and EskiĢehir Road, is the most rapidly growing corridor of Ankara101. EskiĢehir Road is the major traffic artery which carries all the vehicular traffic flow between the city center and the south-western urban developments. As the working and living population increased along the corridor, it required the re-structuring of the city transportation systems, and AMM decided to make new investments on this traffic artery, by turning it into an 8-lane road (4 lanes in each side), constructing bridges, underpasses for vehicular transportation and overpasses for pedestrians, and making the aesthetical re-arrengements along the corridor.

Ġnönü Boulevard is the early-developed part in EskiĢehir Road, including important state and military buildings with the Republic identity. Ġnönü Bulvarı is characterised by these buildings starting from TBMM and Bakanlıklar district which were developed with visual qualities, including public artworks -sculptures, statues, architectural decorations, wall reliefs. They have given the character of this boulevard. The artworks of many government and military buildings, such as those in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Grand

100 As it is mentioned before Güvenpark was also subject to different arrangements that affected the unity and identity of the area including dividing the park to create a place for bus stations inside, re-arrangement of the park which ended with loss of identity of the public space. 101 After the 1960s, because of the need of place for new ministries, the axis of Ġnönü Boulevard-EskiĢehir Road were planned to be a development area for new state buildings and the lands were expropriated by the state were given to institutions starting from the west side of Bakanlık region. With the plan of Ubaydin-Yücel, the development of new ministry buildings took place around the Ġnönü Boulevard- EskiĢehir Road route. The 1990 Ankara Master Plan (1990 Ankara Nazım Planı) which came into force in 1982 was the main plan that effected the decentralisation of the city towards the western corridor; EskiĢehir Road and Ġstanbul Road. The decentralization policy was also one of the important inputs of the plan in terms of development of the city center. The decentralization towards EskiĢehir Road comprises new residential areas with high density for middle-upper and upper income group, new educational institutions, state buildings and outbuildings. The population around the route is connected to the city center with mainly EskiĢehir Road and minor roads. That is why, the area has become subject to a traffic problem after the development decisions of the plan (ġenyapılı, 2006). 113

National Assembly of Turkey, Ministry of National Defence and Ministry Of Labor, have complemented this character of the Boulevard.

EskiĢehir Road, however, is the developing part of the Ġnönü Boulevard. Different buildings and public artworks have been built independently on the lands along this road, such as new shopping malls (Armada, Cepa, Kent Park, and Gordion) and many public and private office buildings. In terms of public artworks, Ġnönü Boulevard and EskiĢehir Road exhibit different visual characteristics.

EskiĢehir Road, after the latest road widening and underpasses and overpasses project, has become a high-speed vehicular artery. The transportation investments on EskiĢehir Road, however, have resulted in several problems: the underpasses and bridges have reduced the legibility of urban environment and the city, have created aesthetically poor and unfunctional urban spaces; the physical and visual accessibility to these artworks are restrictive because of the roads character and the underpasses, bridges constructed.

AMM, with the purpose of minimizing the aesthetical problems of these constructions, created different decorational and also commercial rearrangements. In addition to lightening and landscaping of the road and refuges, the Municipality designed pedestrian overpasses with modern design and lightening (which looks like Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam). Even though the pedestrian overpasses do not respond to the pedestrians needs, they create an aesthetic look for vehicular drivers and passengers. Also, different pool decorations exist in Söğütözü junction and Hacettepe Bridge. Besides, the green areas of Konya Road decorated Bridge were decorated with goat sculptures which do not exist now. In addition to decorations along the corridor, the walls of underpasses of three main bridges of EskiĢehir Road (after Mevlana Boulevard) are designed with relief works. Bilkent underpass is decorated with goat ceramic figures; Hacettepe underpass with rabbit ceramic figures and Ümitköy underpass with cat ceramic figures which are three symbolic animals of Ankara. According to the Mayor, these ceramic figures that represent Ankara, have become beautiful examples and gained appreciation from the public (CĠHAN, 2010).The Municipality even put some benches in front of these wall reliefs, although these underpasses are polluted (with the dirt, exhause and voice of the vehicles). Currently pedestrians do not use these underpasses. The installation of such public artworks in the places which are not used by the public and which are not perceivable by vehicular drivers and passengers is therefore rather questionable. As these artworks are not accessible to the public and cannot affect their daily life, their publicness is also questionable, too. These municipal interventions prove that AMM seeks to beautify the unappealing transportation

114 infrastructure developments by soft landscaping, lightening and wall reliefs schemes with no consideration of the public needs, problems and priorities.

Figure 67.The motifs of the Agora cat, rabbit and goat on the walls of bridges along EskiĢehir Road and sitting benches under the underpasses. Source: Personal Archive

After the construction of vehicular underpasses along EskiĢehir Road, vacant lands appeared at the top of these underpasses. AMM decided to produce public space schemes for these sites, the first of which is Atatürk Square – a square with a landmark on Akay underpass. The second public space scheme is designed to turned ‗2004 underpass‘ (the underpass after Akay underpass) into a car-parking area.

GökkuĢağı Recreational Area was opened in 2006102 and the project has been a problematic area since its construction103. The project was designed within the aim of responding aesthetical and functional concerns in middle of a main road, which is distorted after the construction of an underpass. The location of the area is a significant node exists in the entrance of Ankara‘s famous sub-centre Bahçelievler (7th Street), middle of National

102 GökkuĢağı Recreational Area was opened in 2006 with high public attention because of a huge organisation including a public concert, lightening shows and fireworks. 103 The mayor Ġ. Melih Gökçek explains the design process of the project as; ―I imagined, architects draw‖ (Hürriyet Ankara, 2007). This explanation shows that the project was designed with arbitrary decisions. 115

Library and the ministry and located in a public transport node where bus stops and (unrealized) metro station exists. After the construction of the underpass, the density of the traffic flow seemed to decrease on ground level. GökkuĢağı Recreational Area constructed in middle of a high density urban road on the ground level of the underpass. Project was aimed to include commercial activities like cafeterias and various stores in addition to these the area includes public spaces with specially designed elements. GökkuĢağı was aimed to present an alternative gathering place with distinctive designworks including sunshades, pool, watch tower, glass design and lightening designs. The area was also designed to create a show together with the music broadcast and special lightening systems which was said to be used first time that period together with a radilating laser system that illuminates the sky104 (Cnn Türk, 2011).

Figure 68.The view of the clock tower and the pool with glasswork together Source: (wowTurkey, 2006)

GökkuĢağı, which was opened in 2006105, has become a problem area since its construction106. As it is constructed in the middle of a high-density urban road, it was negatively affected by the dirt, dust, exhaust and noise of vehicles. The project was not designed by considering public needs and uses of the area, either. The extravagant design107 features first attracted some public attention. Then, it was realized that it would never be enough. After operating for six months, in 2007, all the firms left GökkuĢağı it (Hürriyet Ankara, 2007). Since then, GökkuĢağı has left idled and dilapidated in time.

104The recreational area also presented an internet zone with wireless web system. 105GökkuĢağı Recreational Area was opened in 2006 with high public attention because of a huge organisation including a public concert, lightening shows and fireworks. 106 The Mayor Gökçek explains the design process of the project as follows: ―I imagined, architects draw‖ (Hürriyet Ankara, 2007). This explanation shows that the project was designed with arbitrary decisions. 107 The design of the place also does not respect the environment, buildings and the roads and it damages the silhouette. 116

Figure 69.The general view and inner view of GökkuĢağı in EskiĢehir Road at night Source: (Hürriyet, 2009)

Figure 70.The night view of GökkuĢağı area from street. Source: (wowTurkey, 2006)

Since its construction process, GökkuĢağı took professional chambers‘ oppositions. As the place has not had a construction plan, the buildings in GökkuĢağı had to be prefabricated. However, it was later realized that they were not (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2006)108. For this reason, the construction of GökkuĢağı was against the Construction Law. In 2008, Ankara City Planners Chamber sued AMM, claiming that:

―The area is against Construction Law and legislations. The area which was generated by development readjustment share was allocated for commercial uses by AMM. The wide pedestrian walkways were narrowed; even fell under the projected standards and legislation. Project was based on arbitrary decisions and public funding has been wasted. The rearrangement is completely against to the principles of urbanism and planning principles.‖ (ġPO, 2008)

108 The former Chairman of Ankara City Planners Chamber Zafer ġahin explains that this kind of an investment shows the political propaganda and populist attitude of the municipality (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2006). The Chairman of Ankara Civil Engineers Chamber Fehmi ToptaĢ explains that GökkuĢağı is not an appropriate project and it is constructed because of generating rent (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2006). 117

The lawsuit led to bring GökkuĢağı on the agenda of the Parliament109, for the purpose of redesigning the area by taking public interest to forefront. In the meawhile, AMM carried out a survey110 in 2009 to investigate the citizens opinions about the future of GökkuĢağı and 7th Street. In the survey, the following question was asked: "Under the project of Bahcelievler 7th Street‘s closing to traffic, GökkuĢağı Recreation Area is going to be re- evaluated. Which way would you prefer?‖ and the options were: a) art street for painters and sculptors, b) scientific book sales area for students, c) sales area for embassies to advertise their country, d) electronics bazaar, shoemakers bazaar, and e) none (Hürriyet, 2009). The survey ended up with 801 votes; ―none‖ was the option selected111 by the public. Since then, AMM has not asked the opinions of professional chambers or citizens about GökkuĢağı. Obviously, this attitude of the local authority cannot be seen as collaborative or democratic.

GökkuĢağı was designed as a commercialized and privatized public space. It was against the Development Law because there cannot be commercial usage on a public road which is generated by development readjustment share112. Despite this, AMM provided all four future options of GökkuĢağı as commercial uses. Alternative suggestions have come from professional chambers113 and the citizens. For instance, Ekin Kaya, a lecturer from Hacettepe University, suggests the redesign of the site as an open public art exhibition, named as ‗Poisoned Sculptures Exhibition Project‘ which stands with a criticism for Ankara‘s pollution problem mainly as a result of the vehicle-based problems (Bayer, 2011). Kaya claims that this kind of an approach can led people to question their environment, thereby increasing their environmental sensibility, and can keep the discussions on public transportation needs alive (Bayer, 2011).

As a final attempt, in 2011, the Municipality expressed a new idea to re-attract public‘s attention to GökkuĢağı area by re-naming it as ―Twitter Road‖ and giving a high speed internet service on the area (Hürriyet Ankara, 2011). Nevertheless, GökkuĢağı area now

109 In 2008, Ankara Deputy of CHP, Tekin Bingol, brought GökkuĢağı on the agenda of the Parliament. Bingöl claimed that: ―GökkuĢağı was claimed to be created with aesthetical and functional reasons. On the contrary, it has never been an attractive area for the citizens with neither its aesthetical and functional look nor its shops which were planned to be a source of income" (Hürriyet Ankara, 2008). 110 The survey included 1744 home and places of works around Bahçelievler region (Hürriyet, 2009). 111 The other options including; ―art street for painters and sculptors‖ received 285 votes, ―scientific book sales area for students‖ received 209 votes, ―electronics bazaar‖ received 56 votes , ―shoemakers bazaar‖ received 34 votes and 191 votes were wasted (Hürriyet, 2009). 112 The development readjustment share (Düzenleme Ortaklık Payı-DOP) is defined within the 18th title of Construction Law of Turkey which shows a reorganization of the urban land that is used to create public spaces for the area by taking at most 35% of the total area of their land for public use including new roads, streets, public spaces, green areas, play ground and park. This procedure can be realized for once and the area taken for public use cannot be used for commercial purposes. 113 The Ankara City Planners Chamber suggested the abolishment of the Municipal Council's decision, the construction plan amendment and licences granted for the construction. The Chamber also suggested the demolishment of GökkuĢağı and re-construction of the area as it was before (ġPO, 2008). 118 stands as an idle and un-functioned block with no use and became problematic area in Ankara. The demolishment and lawsuits remained on the agenda.

There are various AMM‘s interventions and re-arrangements along the south-western corridor over seventeen years. These area-based and partial (or, project-based) interventions along the boulevard have not been produced as a part of holistic policy. These projects have led to re-create public space and urban identity through eclectic images. However these public spaces and public artworks have been produced, designed by ignoring the spatial and environmental potentials. Moreover, public artworks have not embodied a ‗publicness‘ potential due to the public spaces they exists, the meanings they represented and the development process which did not include any public collaboration or participation. These interventions and decorations have lacked aesthetic quality and functional capacity; while they have only targetted to decorate and beautify these prestige roads by eliminating the visually unpleasant scenes on such highways, underpasses and bridges. On the other hand, as in the case of GökkuĢağı, AMM did not avoid using such critical places for rent objectives, even though it was illegal.

iii. Interventions on Southern Corridor

The southern corridor (Mevlana Boulevard-Konya Highway) connects the city center with Ankara‘s natural resources; forestry areas, Eymir Lake and Mogan Lake. Therefore, the Southern Ankara is partially environmentally protected area with limited urban developments114.

In 2008, a recreational area on Konya Road, called ―Samanyolu‖, was planned to be a recreational area with commercial uses. It is located.along the side of Konya Road, close to the ring road of Ankara on GölbaĢı-Kepekli Boğazı. The area includes 10 villas which were first planned to opearete as restaurants, serving traditional Anatolian foods (Hürriyet Ankara, 2009). The villas resemble ―highway stopovers‖, because there exist no specific relation of the area with other public, residential or urban spaces, except the highway. Rather than an informal, natural recreation space along a highway, the garden of Samanyolu represents a highly designed and formal space with formed and designed soft landscaping elements, gathering areas with sunshades, playgrounds for children, including pools, decorations and sculptures. One can wonder whether this is a public recreational site, or a private estate with its villas and decorated garden. Samanyolu seems to be planned without understanding and knowing the recreational needs and habits of Ankara citizens. This partial and area-based project, just like others, was not a part of an open space stragey

114 However, as the Prime Minister announced in the general elections in 2011, new developments are foreseen for the Southern Ankara that will ultimately lead to a corridor development. 119 of this city. It was insufficient in terms of public accessibility, publicness and functionality. The area and the buildings have left idle for more than two years.

Figure 71.The location of Samanyolu in Konya Road Source: (Ġl Gazetesi, 2011)

AMM decided to renew Samanyolu as an outlet center; and it was opened in 1 April 2011 with its new name ―BaĢkent Designer Outlet‖. It is claimed that BaĢkent Designer Outlet has given a different ambiance to the main southern enterance of Ankara with its architectural style, different vision and design including sculptures, special lightenings performed at night115, redesigned pools, water channels, water jets, artificial ponds, water plays and view terraces (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). The garden of Samanyolu was also decorated with public artworks, such as marble horse and bull sculptures, imported from China116 (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). Once again, it is possible to see the AMM‘s policy of using ordinary and identical sculptures/public artworks to decorate different public spaces. Such public artworks, which have no relation with the characteristics of the ‗place‘, its history and context, unfortunately, do not contribute to the identity of Samanyolu.

Although Samanyolu was designed in nature, the site could not become an integral part of natural environment (such as forest). It has become an attractive site on Konya Highway with motorway scenery, standing in vehicular dirt, pollution and noise. The design of Samanyolu, the garden and the public artworks have been produced without condidering these spatial and environmental potentials. These artworks, designed to beautify Samanyolu, have no interaction with the public, as they are located in a place where accessibility and legibility is limited for the general public to experience. So, artworks do not embody a publicness potential through the public spaces they exists, through the meanings they represent and also through the production process. The Municipality use

115 The Mayor explained that the area is going to be a significant place where people can do low-priced shopping in a pleasent environment (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). 116 AMM expressed that bull and horse sculptures are imported from China and they are going to import a large number of sculptures from China with an aim of locating in different recreational areas of Ankara (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011) 120 such decorations, designworks and public artworks in public areas to attract public attention to such prestige areas. But, still, these interventions are not adequate for a public space which is low in accessibility by citizens117.

Figure 72.The recreational area and sculptures in Samanyolu- BaĢkent Designer Outlet Source: (Belediye Bülteni, 2011)

Similar to GökkuĢağı Project, Samanyolu-BaĢkent Designer Outlet, announced as prestige recreational areas for the city, has become unfunctional urban spaces where high amount of public resources wasted. Even Samanyolu was re-functioned and used as an outlet centre118, a public space, like a roadside along a highway, should not be turned into a commercial space by a local authority. This is a clear privatisation of public spaces or lands.

Mevlana Boulevard- Konya Road was also subject to different interventions along the central part. Konya Road is also subject to recreational embellishments including landscape decorations, lightening, instalment of water elements and sculptures along the road. As the corridor is an entrance way from Konya where is the Mevlana‘s homecity, in 2011, AMM realized a public art project on top of the pedestrian overpass in Mevlana Boulevard (Haber 3, 2011). This is the first project of Municipality‘s policy of locating symbolic sculptures on the overpasses that resembles the road and boulevard‘s names (Haber 3, 2011).

117 AMM uses critical areas, like the examples of GökkuĢağı and Samanyolu for rent objectives in urban space and uses artworks and design works to legitimate the visuality of the place and eliminate the criticisms. 118 The same policy is trying to be created for GökkuĢağı Area. 121

Figure 73.The Semazen sculpture on top of the elevator of the overpass in Mevlana Boulevard. Source: Personal Archive

The Semazen (Whirling dervish) sculptures are located on top of the two sides of the overpass (on top of the elevator column structures). They whirl around themselves and specifically lit at night and creating a visual effect. Seljuk motifs are used for the decorations on elevator column and the column structures are also designed associated with Seljuk style. The so-called Seljuk style was used inorder to provide integrity with Semazen sculptures.

The pedestrian overpasses are restricting structures for pedestrian circulation in urban space and urban aesthetics. The interventions on the overpass together with the sculptures are used to eliminate unsightly visuality of the structures and decorated the pedestrian overpass. However these overpasses are neither gathering places nor a part of urban public

122 spaces, they are only transition passes for pedestrians. So Semazen Sculptures on overpass do not embody a publicness potential through the public spaces they exist.

These sculptures are realized as a part of AMM‘s policy which has the objective to decorate the main roads by creating artworks on pedestrian overpasses that resembles the road‘s names on overpasses. This policy aims to re-create public space and urban identity through eclectic images and projects that do not contribute to Ankara‘s identity119.

3.2.4. Approaches on Proposed and Unrealized Projects for Ankara City

Since 1994, AMM has demonstrated their target prestige projects to the public to create significance in Ankara. This section examines the proposed public artwork projects of the Municipality to understand its approach and strategy to the public art. First, specific examples of the recent proposed projects for Ankara (including those mentioned in the campaigns of the 2011 General Election and the 2009 Local Election) will be explained. Second, some cases from the former proposed projects for Ankara will be studied.

3.2.4.1. Metropolitan Municipality’s Proposed Projects for Ankara

AMM‘s proposed projects are examplified in AMM‘s three promissories in general elections in 2011 and local elections in 2009 for Ankara which are ―Lightening Project in Ankara‖, ―Water, Music and Ligtening Entertainment Shows in Gençlik Parkı‖ and ―Creating a ―historical‖ look for Kızılay by Cladding the Buildings with Seljuk Architecture‖.

i. Lightening Project for Ankara (2011)

AMM puts emphasis on lightening design of the environment for almost all projects. Lightening in Ankara has started to be used as decorations for pedestrian bridges, pools, prestige parks and specific buildings. In addition to these independent projects, after his visit to Shanghai (China) in 2010, the Mayor expressed that he was so impressed from Shangay‘s magnificant lightening that they would make similar lightening projects for Ankara (Hürriyet, 2010).

119 This policy and approach resembles the former giant sculpture projects of the Municipality that could not be realized. The project was to create giant symbolic sculptures (which would work as shopping centers, restaurants, etc) in the enterance highways of Ankara, and was to associate with the road‘s names. The Mayor put forth the idea of Semazen Sculpture for Konya Road; Fatih Sultan Mehmet Sculpture for Ġstanbul Road; Nasrettin Hodja Sculpture for EskiĢehir Road, Atatürk Sculpture for Samsun Road (See: Section 3.2.4.2). 123

A lightening project was proposed to the City Council to decorate Ankara for the New Year 2010. The project was approved by the Council, with the following claim:

―Lightening projects all around the world are regarded as a measure of civilization. Specially designed lighting in the cityincreases the economic valueof the cities, and tourists and visitors, and makes a major contribution to the world- wide promotion of the city. This lightening project also highly serves in the public interest‖ (Hürriyet, 2010).

Yet, the project has never implemented120. With the lightening project, AMM targets to attract tourists, visitors, to increase local consumption and to provide a world-wide promotion/campaign of Ankara. The new project of AMM includes the lightening of the main squares, main roads, boulevards, highways, the places with high working and shopping capacity with a special design The project gives priority to significant public and commercial places, including the major boulevards (Atatürk Boulevard), five main enterence highways (Northern Corridor (Esenboğa Road-Özal Boulevard), Ġnönü Boulevard-EskiĢehir Road, Ġstanbul Road- Fatih Sultan Mehmet Boulevard, Konya Road (Mevlana Boulevard), Samsun Road), Anıtkabir, and the surrounding area, Haci Bayram and vicinity, historical buildings, recreational areas, forest areas in the city enterances, official and private buildings (including shopping malls) in the city centre121 (Hürriyet, 2010).

AMM announced the details of the lightening project in 2011. 300 buildings were to be lightened with different design strategies, such as the city hall, official buildings, and Armada (shopping mall) which were to be lightened with red colour) (Radikal, 2011). AMM specially emphasised the prestige that would bring to Ankara through this project, while undermining the high cost of the project122 (Radikal, 2011). Again, the project presented within the perspective of prestige or promotion that would bring to Ankara. To the project, the City Hall would be the symbolic building on which different shows would be exhibited and there would be television screens in two sides of the building on which national matches can be watched (Radikal, 2011) Besides, these screens would also show some other displays, such as virtual demolishment of the building, passing fishes in the

120 It should be mentioned that there was no special programs and decorations forAnkara‘s public spaces in the New Year 2011. In newspapers it is written that, because of the lack of special programs, ―Ankara citizens could only look at the pools and the lightenings of the central park during the celebrations of 2011‖ (Ankara Haber, 2011). 121 AMM will only pay the construction costs of lightening project, and its five-year maintenance cost, But, after the construction is completed, the electricity costs of the building lighting will be paid by the public authorities of the public buildings and the owners of the private buildings (Hürriyet, 2010). 122 It has to be mentioned that, since 1994, the Municipality did not prolong the metro line any meters because of the costs it has created for the municipality. However in the lightening project the cost is undermined by AMM because the project would bring Ankara and AMM bring prestige. This kind of a policy expresses the priorities of the Metropolitan Municipality. 124 building, dropping flowers and waterfalls123 (ĠHA, 2010). These images, shows are not proposing meaningful expressins for citizens or visitors.

As a part of this lightening project, Atakule124 was first lightened for the celebrations of the General Elections results in 2011. After the announcement of the victory of Justice and Development Party, Prime Minister Erdoğan made the grand opening125. Atakule which was built in the 1980s, has become a symbolic shopping center representing ―free market‖ system. It is also one of the iconoic buildings of Ankara with its architecture (soL, 2011). After the first implementation of the project on Atakule, AMM claimed that the lightening project created a magnificent vision for Atakule and it turned into a symbol of Ankara (however, it has already been a symbolic building for Ankara)126.

Figure 74.The grand opening of the lightening show after the declaration of the results of the general elections Source: (haber365.com, 2011)

123 The Mayor expressed these examples that would create attraction around the environment of City Hall, it is expressed that people can gather together to watch these artificial shows (ĠHA, 2010). 124 Atakule which is opened in 66th anniversary of Ankara‘s decleration of being the Capital was owened by Vakıfbank. The architectural style became a symbol for Ankara but until its construction Atakule has been subject to different criticisms. The shopping center was started to lose its boom in 2000s. The majority share is sold to a business man in 2009, more stores closed in the shopping center because of some critical changes occured that affected the tenants of the stores and consumers (Çayyolu Haber, 2011). Now even after the Grand opening of the lightening, the stores are stil closed however the cost of ascending the terrace of the tower increased three times before (Çayyolu Haber, 2011). 125 Prime Minister made the opening in the name of God, with fireworks and music playing the Party‘s special song. 126 As the project inspired from Shanghai Mayor made the explanation of ―Ankara‘s lightening is going to be better than Shanghai‖ After the lightening of Atakule has completed Gökçek referencing his former explanation by adding that ―the lightening of Atakule has draw away Shanghai. It creates a magnificent vision and it is going to be the symbol of Ankara‖ and designating ―Democracy Flambeau‖ for Atakule (Çayyolu Haber, 2011). 125

Figure 75.The vision of Atakule after and before the lightening project Source: (Kuzey, 2011)

AMM aims to enliven the city, create prestige for and make promotion of Ankara by the lightening project. However, a city which started to lose its identity, cannot reach the Shanghai‘s buoyancy which is actually based on high commercial potential in the city. Moreover, the underlying expressions about the project include the minor policies of Municipality. For instance, after the Mayor‘s visit to Shanghai, he explained his impressions as follows:

―...there exists five-layer road in middle of the city, like in Kızılay example. They used landscaping elements like different types of trees, shrubs, and common ivies in order to cover the unsightly view. The best of it they lightened the area which modified the unsightly view to a visual quality so it became a place where people want to pass‖ (Gökçek Ġ. M., 2010)

Like the general decorations on roadsides, new prestige areas (which are lack of aesthetics), new buildings the significant intervention is the lightening in addition landscaping which modify the unsightly look of the places.

ii. Water, Music and Ligtening Entertainment Shows in Gençlik Parkı (2011)

Ankara Metropolitan Municipality in 2010, as it is mentioned in previous section (3.2.2.2.) was introduced the idea of a new project on the pool of Gençlik Parkı, which they expressed as ―water jet dance show‖ (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2010). It is proposed as a huge prestige project for Gençlik Parkı after its renewal project in 2009.

Significantly different from other proposals or projects of AMM, before realizing this entertainment show in Gençlik Parkı, AMM asked citizens‘ opinion and take a vote on its realization by propagandizing the project giving details even by videos of the probable 126 show and by expressing the cost127 of the project (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2010). The result of the vote turned out to be ―yes‖ to the new water jet dance show with a 62 percent of the result128. As a result the project becomes an ongoing project for the renewal of Gençlik Parkı.

The project named as ―Magnificent Dance Show of Water Together with Light and Music‖ and the preliminary rehearsal of the show is realized in 2 September 2011129. The performance includes both audial and visual shows preformed with harmony and lasts 45 minutes which is planned to occur every night. It is a special visual show with music compliance constitute of light and image shows that appear on the fountains of water in the big pool of Güvenpark.

Figure 76. ―Magnificent Dance of Water Together With Light and Music‖ in Güvenpark Source: (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011)

In addition to the fireworks, laser and lightening shows realized with various music compliance, the traditional music are played and traditional dance views are reflected on the rising waters from water jets. Also, Mehter MarĢı (marching music of Ottoman Military) is played with Turkish Flag and Atatürk‘s view. It is observed that Municipality‘s nationalist-conservative perspective also appears in the visuality of the show. The emblem of the AMM showed in the changeovers of the views. The show is finalized with the views

127 Municipality expressed the cost of the Project as 2-3 million Euros in 2010 (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2010). 128 11273 people attended the survey and 61.87 expressed ―yes‖ and ―38.13 ―no‖ to the proposed show (Cumhuriyet Ankara, 2010). 129The official opening of the show is planning to be realized in 29 September which is the 88th anniversary of the proclamation of the republic (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). However in 2001 all the celebrations of 29th September cancelled in Turkey, therefore the grand opening of the show couldn‘t realized. 127 of first the president Abdullah Gül, then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and finally the Mayor Gökçek on the rising waters from water jets. The final shows represent the Municipality‘s policy of using the show as propagation tool for itself and the party it belongs.

Figure 77.The visions of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (on top) and Ġ. Melih Gökçek on on the rising waters from water jets Source: snapshots in the video retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSgfvVH6MxM&NR=1

This show aims to attract visitors to Gençlik Parkı for night.The project is the biggest show in Turkey aims to be the biggest on Europe and continues to develop comprehensively for the grand opening (Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi, 2011). Also this project aims to make promotion of Ankara by having ―the biggest show‖ which creates a branding for the show.

However it is an alternation process that creates a different characteristic for Gençlik Parkı which results in blurring the collective memory of the public. On the other hand, the public is unaware of this alternation process which they perceive as ―entertainment‖, ―biggest show‖ or ―beautification‖ etc. The images of Republican period in the park based on ―modern city‖ and ―modern life‖ are trivitalized in the public eye through the renewal process of the park and also through this entertainment show project on the pool. The pool which was once atranquilizing visual element on which water sports activities would have been realized now became only a a scenery area with a water surface for water show activities (like the interventions on other pools realized by AMM). The initial recreational identity of the pool started to change into amusement activities.

128

iii. Creating a “historic” look for Kızılay byCladding the Buildings with Seljuk Architecture

In 2011, during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister announced their future projects for Ankara by emphasizing that ―Ankara is a Seljuk city with all aspects‖130. As mentioned before, Ankara‘s history and identity that has a long historical background. However AMM reduced it primarily to Seljuk and Ottoman periods131.

One of them was to create a new look or townscape for Kızılay. To the project, the facades of the buildings along Atatürk Boulevard and the main roads were to be covered by using so-called Seljuk architectural132 style. The proposal targets to create or impose so-called Seljuk identity for Kızılay. In this sense, the project aims to restructure the architectural composition of Kızılay-YeniĢehir (―new city‖ or ―new city centre‖) which was planned in the 1930s (during the Republican period) and has not had any Seljuk traces. The proposed intervention undermines the existing identities and suggests an alternation process which would create different characteristics for Kızılay and its public spaces. This alternation process would result in blurring the collective memory of Kızılay and the city. The images of Republican period on Kızılay are trivitalized in the public eye. The public, however, is unaware of this alternation process and they perceive all these interventions as the beautification of public space. Prof. Dr. Kıymet Giray, an art historian, makes the following comments about these Municipal strategies:

―There exists no example in the world that destroys the historical fabric continuously in order to construct a new configuration. Continual destruction creates misidentification. Yenişehir has been experiencing an erosion of identity, also creating erosions in the city‟s identity. All these happen because of not knowing „urban‟ concept‖ (Tartanoğlu/Cumhuriyet, 2011)

130 Tartanoğlu expressed that even if there exist Seljuk structures (even less than the Roman artifacts) in the city; structures of Republican period dominated the identity of Ankara (Tartanoğlu/Cumhuriyet, 2011). 131 This cladding project created a controversy among the professionals work within urban environment. Architects state that the project is ―revilement to architects and modern architecture‖, city planners commented to the project as a or ―uniform‖ rearrangement and added that if the natural facades are to be cleared from the advertisement signboards would affect the situation of Kızılay a lot (HaberTürk Ankara, 2011). 132 Dr. Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay author of the book ‗Cities and Towns‘, expresses that ―Seljuks followed a nomadic lifestyle and do not have a specific architectural style. They adopted the architectural style of the places they lived including the Armenian, Byzantine and Syrian, and in the south Arabic architecture‖ (TMOBB ġehir Plancıları Odası, 2011). 129

Figure 78. Building in kızılay and its visualisation after cladding Source: (HaberTürk Ankara, 2011)

The proposed cladding project affects public spaces and also its integral elements including public artworks. The proposed cladding project undermines the existing characteristic and identities on Kızılay and the public spaces. Therefore it would decrease symbolic values of these public spaces and public artworks they include by affecting its unity, legibility in its location and for that reason its characteristics.

Figure 79.Visualisation of cladding and lightening of the buildings along Atatürk Boulevard Source: (HaberTürk Ankara, 2011)

3.2.4.2. Metropolitan Municipality’s Unrealized Projects for Ankara

Since 1994, AMM has put forth a number of public artwork projects which have not been implemented. The gateway projects on the entrance highways of Ankara are one of these projects. Various schemes have been proposed even before 1994 by AMM. For instance, in 1993 Metropolitan Municipality proposed a project of designed gateways for Ankara aiming to create a European look (Sabah, 2003). These gateways were planned as

130 architectural constructions on which some facilities would be served for the visitors (Sabah, 2003).

In 2004, before the local elections, the Mayor Gökçek demonstrated his future projects for Ankara to public. In the election campaign, his vision for Ankara was to make the capital a tourism center133through ―The 7 Wonders of Ankara‖ project (Radikal, 2004). These 7 wonders targets to attract tourism and also to provide a world-wide promotion of Ankara. The first ―wonder‖ of the proposed project was the highest134 Turkish Flag on top of a media tower that all the antennas will be held (Radikal, 2004). In addition to media center (allocated for television shots), there would be restaurants, and the observational terrace for visitors. The second ―wonder‖ would be a huge hotel on top of Hıdırlık Tepe near Ulus. In addition, there would be a huge plane model (the biggest airbus plane of 2004) on top of the hotel which will be the observational terrace135. There would be also a restaurant, an entertainment center, an observational terrace (on the wings of the bus) and would be lightened at night to increase the attractiveness of the place (Radikal, 2004). According to the Mayor, the project would be in Guiness Book of World Records and by giving the example of Paris and Eiffel Tower, it was purposed to make the plane-hotel as the symbol of Ankara (Hürriyet Ankara, 2004).The Mayor aimed to create a city image and branding through these projects.

The other wonders were part of a specific policy of creating giant sculptures136 in the entrance highways of Ankara. The giant sculpture projects are designed specifically resembling the names of the entrance ways (which are actually the cities they access). The proposed projects are Semazen Sculpture for Konya Road-Mevlana Boulevard; Fatih Sultan Mehmet Sculpture for Ġstanbul Road; Nasrettin Hodja Sculpture for EskiĢehir Road-Ġnönü Boulevard, Atatürk Sculpture for Samsun Road-19 Mayıs Boulevard. As the Mayor expressed, Atatürk Sculpture on 19 Mayıs Boulevard137 would accommodate a museum, a library and book stores (Radikal, 2004). Fatih Sultan Mehmet Sculpture138 would also

133 In addition to the Wonders Project, Gökçek expressed that inorder to create a tourism potential 10 museum (Radikal, 2004). However his expressions for museum are clothes, pots and pans, and carpet museums which have no industrial identity or special relation with Ankara. This project also expresses Municipality‘s understanding of museum as a store with no vision. 134The flag is planned to be 180 meters high which would be the highest flag in the world. 135 He also expressed that the whole Hıdırlıktepe area is going to be ―cleaned‖ and ―is going to be full of new villas‖ (Radikal, 2004). So the hotel project was actually a part of an urban transformation area of Municipality. The transformation project has also become specific project afterwords which became a part of the renewal of Ulus historical center project. The model of the plane on top of the plane has declined but the urban transformation plan of Hıdırlıktepe with new villas became a specific project in 2010. 136As it is expressed they are planned to be 50 meters high (Radikal, 2004). 13719 Mayıs (19 May) expresses a specific day for Turkish Republic. 19 May 1919 is the day when Atatürk arrived to Samsun and now it is celebrated as ―Commemoration of Ataturk Youth and Sports Day‖ in Turkey every year. 138 According to Gökçek Fatih Sultan Mehmet was planned to be modelled with his horse after his first defeat of conquering Ġstanbul. 131 include a museum, in addition to various facilities. And also, on top of the turban of Sultan, there would be an observational terrace in which tourists could watch the city scene (Radikal, 2004). In EskiĢehir Road, the Mayor proposed a giant Nasreddin Hodja Sculpture139 symbolizing himself riding his donkey reversely, and envisioned a new entertainment and business center (Hürriyet Ankara, 2004). Finally, a giant semazen (whirling derwish) sculpture in which at least 10 floors of restaurants aimed to serve foods of different localities, is planned to be located in Konya Road-Mevlana Boulevard (Radikal, 2004). The top of the sculpture would rotate to give the effect of semazen and on top of the sculpture; in the tarboosh of there will be observational terrace for visitors. In 2004, it was expressed that ―there are applicants for the Semazen sculpture already‖, by expressing the cost of the project he added that ―making money is not important but attracting tourists is substantial‖ which is actually a conflicting explanation (Hürriyet Ankara, 2004).

Figure 80.The illustrations of unrealized projects Source: (Melih Gökçek, 2009)

139 He selected Nasreddin Hodja sculpture as EskiĢehir Road leads to AkĢehir which is the hometown of this legendary character. 132

These unrealized projects are unsuccessful projects within every aspect. First of all, the policy of creating artworks/constructions that resembles the highway‘s names; shows an attempt to represent the identity of the other cities that the roads oriented. These projects neglect the identity of Ankara by creating specific characteristic figures of the other cities.

As they are proclaimed as sculptures these works use art, culture, history as a tool to realize the rent-based purposes of the Municipality. Some of the projects include significant museums, but there exists no vision for their content.

However as these are expressed as sculptures, all of the projects are lack of aesthetical concerns and the artistic purposes of the project are stayed far behind. These wonders are exposed as ―the highest‖, ―the biggest‖ constructions to make a promotion and branding projects but their effect on the silhouette of Ankara are not even considered.

Also the nationalist-conservative policy together with rent purposes of Metropolitan Municipality arises within these projects of constructing ―the highest flag‖, constructing the plane-hotel which is aimed to be the symbol of Ankara, creating Seljuk and Ottoman figures in which people can eat and consume, even expressing to create a library the aim of creating a bookstore occurs. The main policy is attracting tourist for Ankara but these project would not be considered attractive potentials for the city.

All of the significant promises of 2004 local elections could not be realized and subject to different lawsuits. Even though the Mayor expressed that they are not given up from the projects in 2008, all these projects were neglected in the 2009 local elections. However, some of these projects were actually part of a bigger policy which can be observed. For instance, the project of Hıdırlıktepe now became a significant urban transformation project. Prime Minister Erdoğan also mentioned the same project in the general election in 2011. This project involves the construction of a huge belief museum on top of Hıdırlıktepe which would be the significant part for creating the vision of making Ankara to be the center of belief tourism. The Plane-Hotel Project is also brought to the agenda in 2008, Mayor pronounced that a Plane-Hotel would be constructed within the Northern Ankara Transformation Project (Hürriyet, 2008). Another example is occurred for Nasreddin Hodja sculpture, which is in 2009 subject to an urban transformation project called Nasreddin Hodja Urban Transformation Project. Metropolitan Municipality proposed an urban transformation project in an area where any foreseen situation (including illegal housing or destruction area) that is explained in the essentials of Municipality Law exits (Hürriyet, 2009). Municipality increased the equal share rate of the land 14 times more to in order to create a shopping mall and high-rised housing in the area of Kent Park now

133

(Hürriyet, 2009). Mayor Gökçek expressed that ―They came to me. They promised to do my dream sculpture of Nasreddin Hodja riding his donkey reversely, so I increased the equal share rate of the land. It is worth the salt‖ (Hürriyet, 2009). However the sculpture couldn‘t be realized and Nasreddin Hodja became subject to urban rent interest of Municipality.

Figure 81.The 3D visualization of Nasreddin Hodja Urban Transformation Project Source: (Hürriyet, 2009)

In addition, creating a Semazen Sculpture in Mevlana Boulevard is partially realized in 2011 as mentioned previous sections. The policy of creating artworks that resembles the road‘s names on overpasses became a new project for Metropolitan Municipality to decorate the unsightly look of overpasses.

134

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

This research aims, as stated at the introductory section, to study and discuss the public art policies, interventions, statements of AMM and their effects in public spaces of the city since the mid-1990s. In this final chapter, first, it is aimed to summarize the significant findings of the cases mentioned throughout the thesis. Secondly it seeks to present a general assessment on contributions (spatial contributions in particular) of the public art schemes to the public spaces of Ankara and the city over the last seventeen years by discussing the findings in relation to public art theory. Finally, by discussing the pros and cons of the recent policies, interventions of AMM over the last almost two decades, it seeks to give hints about the possible necessary public art policies and strategies for Ankara‘s future.

4.1. Findings of the Research

In the light of the multiple-cases that are examined in the previous chapter, this section presents a short review of conclusions drawn from the arguments developed in different parts of the study.

The examination of the public art strategies and policies of Ankara starts with the period from the late 1920s to the mid-1990s. The republican period became the milestone for public art development in Ankara likewise each city in Turkey because public artworks mainly sculptures, monuments and paintings were not produced and presented in Ottoman Period due to the conservative perspective of Islamic belief. After the declaration of Ankara as the capital city, public art interventions are realized by the state together with the planning and construction works. Ankara is planned within a holistic perception including significant public spaces together with significant monumental sculptures with the aim of creating a national identity and collective memory. The public artworks are designed together with fundamental squares of Ankara. Monumental sculptures (e.g., Zafer Anıtı, Güvenlik Anıtı, Atatürk Sculptures and Anıtkabir) became the major pieces of public artworks which were built to support the regime and ideology of the new nation state in the first fifty years of the republic. These artworks have great importance for the city and the society to meet figurative art in public spaces. However, monumental sculptures are the 135 main public artworks that are produced (which caused modern artistic productions to remain in the background in the first fifty years of the republic) and they are limited in numbers. Following the first fifty years of the republic (after 1970s), public artworks were started to be realized by the local authority to enhance the urban culture of Ankara along with the construction of the nation. After mid-1970s various significant modern public artworks (like Hittite Sun Disk, Miras, Eller, Havuz Fıskiyesi, etc.) that harmonises modern and historical identity of Ankara and also between mid-1980s and mid-1990s modern abstract sculptures (like Periler Ülkesinde, İnsan Hakları, Memur, Su Perilerinin Dansı, Madenci, Taş Ankara, etc.) that revealed and enhanced abstract perspective in art, urban culture and local identity were built and placed by local authority in Ankara. Public artworks were located in the significant squares and also in public buildings, pedestrian streets, public parks and theme parks of the city. Public artworks constructed in Ankara from the 1920s to the early-1990s were important in terms of creating national (collective) memory and presenting the symbols of the Republican ideology (nation-state), and urban culture which were nurtured from modernism. However, after 1994, this process was changed through the new public space and public art strategy of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality.

Today‘s public art strategies in Ankara have been shaped by local authority. This period is an important transformation and alternation era, as it presents a new understanding and strategy towards public artworks which endangered the existing public artworks and promoted strategy of the early period AMM has presented conservative and religious ideology to some extent after 1994. Thus, this period has been dominated by conservative and pro-Islamist vision which became an integral part of the implementations of the Municipality. Also, the Municipality integrated itself easily to the neo-liberal economic policies through their projects.

First of all, Ankara has not had any integrated and holistic public art strategy over the last two decades. Beyond that, Ankara in this period has not had an integrated planning policy and holistic public space strategy. Public art practices, like most of the projects of AMM have been planned through piecemeal policies.

As it can be noted from the sample cases, the number of public artworks which were taken away from their public spaces, violated and vandalized, are considerably high in Ankara. This shows that essential public art strategies; including protection, maintenance and pursuance are not provided properly by local authorities. In addition, some of the artworks were removed from their locations by AMM intentionally, for instance; Periler Ülkesinde, Tutku, Su Perileri sculptures, Roman girl and Roman boy sculptures are significant

136 examples. The reason behind these removals was mainly AMM‘s conservative approaches to public art. It is argued that these public artworks were not appropriate for the public spaces and public life as they represented and promoted immoral notions. These sculptures removed from their location by AMM without public consultation and stayed in AMM‘s warehouses without maintenance (these public artworks were corroded and broken during the period it was kept in the warehouse). Some the artworks relocated, but the removal period effected their publicness, collective memory and physical unity. This kind of interventions towards the public artworks has also been made by the local authorities of different cities until 2011 which actually created an adverse platform for public art perception in Turkey.

AMM made interventions on existing public spaces of Ankara which were planned during the early-republican period together with significant public artworks. These public artworks have commemorative and historical characteristics which contributed to the identity of Ankara. AMM‘s interventions were not realized as a part of a substantive and holistic policy to strengthen, maintain or preserve the early-Republican architecture and public artworks. This can be particularly observed through the interventions of the AMM in the significant public spaces including Hakimiyet-i Milliye (Ulus) Square, Gençlik Parkı, Ankara Train Station, Sıhhiye and Güvenpark and public artworks of the early-Republican period located in those public spaces like Zafer Monument, sculptures in Gençlik Parkı, Miras Sculpture, Monument of Hittite Sun Disk, Eller and Havuz Fıskiyesi Sculpture, Marshall Atatürk Sculpture and Güvenlik Monument.

An alternation process is realized with AMM‘s significant projects and interventions. These insensitive interventions on public spaces and public artworks, undermined the existing characteristic and identities of the location and artworks. Besides they have also decreased their symbolic values by affecting and damaging their unity, accessibility, legibility and artistic attributes like the cases of u-turn bridge‘s effects on public artworks‘ legibility accessibility in Sıhhiye, the effect of water shows on Güvenlik Monument‘s legibility or of yellow dying of Zafer Monument. Degeneration in the unique qualities and characteristics of the public artworks and public spaces were realized as a result of the interventions. In addition AMM has tried to create new identities by replacing original symbols with the new ones including installation of the temporary or permanent structures or popular figures (Seljuk-style gate in Gençlik Parkı or giant gorilla installation in Güvenpark) which undermine the place identity. These interventions as a result blurred the symbolic meanings in citizens‘ mind. The images of Republican period based on ―modern city‖ and ―modern city life‖ have been trivialized in the public eye. Therefore, these interventions are interpreted as acts of removing the traces of the Republican identity (Mimdap, 2009).

137

Another aspect is that public has been unaware of the transformation process and these interventions were represented by AMM and perceived by public as beautification, revitalization or protection of the public spaces.

These cases of public spaces and public artworks are significant assets for Ankara that has to be protected within a holistic planning and preservation approach. However, AMM does not have a holistic protection and maintenance policy for these sites and their elements. AMM‘s protection and maintenance strategies for the public artworks reduced to putting up security cameras or building barriers around sculptures to prevent the harm from vandalism and violations against artworks.

On the other hand, the municipal interventions have had no intention to provide the public involvement in the public art projects, to make constructive discussions and debates on the public spaces and public artwork projects, thereby increasing citizens‘ awareness about the city problems and contributing to public education. Municipality tried public involvement in some small scaled interventions but these intentions were aiming to use public participation as a means of legitimizing the municipal projects and interventions in front of the public.

Since 1994, Ankara Metropolitan Municipality has realized partial new public art practices as Municipality have not had a substantive and holistic public art policy. Yet, it is possible to come to certain conclusions about AMM‘s strategies and preferences on new creating public artworks by investigating their interventions. AMM has realized new implementations including sculptures, decorative elements and design works in different public spaces of Ankara. It can be discussed that these examples and cases are whether or not samples of ‗artwork‘ but this study is not aiming to discuss the artistry of works of municipality.

AMM mainly provided similar types of public artworks for the public spaces of Ankara, which are decorative ‗site-general‘ elements and are not specially designed for these public spaces‘ locations, characters, identities or publicness. The main characteristic of these recent implementations is that they are realized for decorative purposes. These public artworks located by AMM do not emphasize or contribute to the unique character of the places; hence they are not an integrated part of these locations.

For instance water features became one of the representative elements of AMM including artificial pools, water jets which are criticized because of their uniformity for all public spaces, lack of aesthetics, lack of publicness and also containing the Islamic identity. Designed soft and hard landscaping elements are also used as decorative elements.

138

Lightening has also been a design issue for AMM to increase the visual and aesthetic attractiveness in public spaces of Ankara. In addition, AMM has seeked to promote the ―symbols‖ of Ankara by installing public artworks with the figures of Angora goat together with other symbolic animals of Ankara like Angora cat and rabbit in different public spaces. However, public artworks that used these figures especially goat sculptures located in most of the public spaces are used in inappropriate places persistently (like in parks or along main roads and arteries). As they do not integrate with the identity of these places, they become ordinary elements. These goat sculptures are mass-produced decorative elements that are designed with non-abstract realist (realish) style (unlike the Angora goat sculptures placed in the previous periods which were stylized with abstract geometric figures). Besides, the choice of realist figures by AMM since 1994 are controversary with the abstract approaches for public artworks in previous periods of municipality that revealed and enhanced abstract perspective in art, urban culture and local identity in Ankara.

Besides, AMM used mass-produced realish sculptures including standardized figures like horse, bull, cow, gazelle etc. for decorations of different public spaces together with rural working man and woman (with traditional clothes making rural works including farming, milking, picking fruits) figures. Public art can compose and fit with the other elements in public space to create an organized composition however these sculptures do not do not emphasize or enhance the unique character of the places where they are displayed, they are decorative arrangements rather than being artworks. Even if the organization of sculptures creates a composition, these mass-produced, manufactured sculptures in new parks imitate pastoral scenes that create contradiction with the environment they exists (which are generally new development areas) and do not have relevance in the capital city.

Another point is that since mid-1990s, only certain historical images of Ankara which are primarily Seljuk and Ottoman identities (Islamic periods of Ankara), have been emphasized in the AMM‘s projects. In different project AMM used or proposed to use co-called Seljuk and Ottoman styles of decoration and architecture like in the examples of the gate of Gençlik Parkı, Semazen Sculpture in Mevlana Boulevard and the proposed façade project for Kızılay. While giving Seljuk and Ottoman identities prominence in different projects, many other historical and cultural images they include have been undermined, trivialized or removed.

The general public art preferences of AMM can be observed basically in new prestige parks managed by municipality and projects along main boulevards and arteries. In the first instance, AMM has implemented its own ‗aesthetic‘ perspective in new prestige parks

139

(which are generally located in the city‘s peripheries therefore not publicly very accessible and generally planned to attract investment to its environment140) like Göksu Park, Harikalar Diyarı, Dikmen Valley, and Mogan. Rather than commissioning public artworks that would emphasize the unique character of the locations and parks, AMM has opted to use manufactured artworks in the newly developed urban parks. These almost identical artworks, however, do not contribute to parks‘ identity, and do not enrich the public‘s experience on public art. Briefly put, AMM has created its own ‗aesthetic‘ perspective since 1994, and has this perspective implemented on the newly developed parks. Rather than commissioning public artworks that would emphasize the unique character of the locations and parks, AMM has opted to use manufactured artworks in the newly developed urban parks. These almost identical artworks, however, do not contribute to the place identity, and do not enrich the public‘s experience on public art.

Moreover, AMM implemented various approaches, interventions and re-arrangements along the significant boulevards, corridors (or arteries) over seventeen years. These interventions have been realized as area-based and partial (or, project-based) interventions along the boulevard not as a part of holistic and integrated urban transportation policy. These public art approaches, strategies, projects and interventions along main corridors likewise central spine, south-western, northern and southern corridor have been mainly based on embellishment and decoration of these high-speed ―prestige‖ roads and creating urban areas (recreational areas with high rents like Gökkuşağı and Samanyolu141) along these corridors.

AMM used their general public art preferences including designed soft and hard landscaping elements, urban design elements, lightening elements, and public artworks (like animal sculptures, wall relief schemes) along these corridors and recreational areas so that the vehicle drivers and passengers can enjoy the scenes provided by these roads. These interventions have mainly targeted to decorate and beautify these prestige roads by eliminating the visually unpleasant scenes on such highways, transportational constructions (likewise underpasses and bridges which are also realized by AMM) and also its unsightly environment and vacant areas that they create (like the walls and vacant ground levels of the underpasses); by rearranging the environment with urban design elements, public artworks and design works. However most of these interventions and decorations have lacked aesthetic quality and functional capacity.

140 It is possible to note that AMM has consciously promoted that strategy for such prestige parks to increase the real estate values around these parks, and they seem to be rather successful in this sense 141 In these cases AMM did not avoid to use such critical places for rent objectives, even though it was illegal like in the case of GökkuĢağı. 140

Likewise the project-based interventions of AMM have re-created public space and urban identity through eclectic images. In addition, these public spaces and public artworks have been produced (realized or, designed) without taking into consideration the spatial and environmental potentials of the location, boulevard or the city in addition they are realized with no consideration of the public needs, problems and priorities. As a result they do not embody a ‗publicness‘ potential due to the public spaces they exists, the meanings they represented and the development process which did not include any public collaboration or participation.

Finally, with the intention of realizing an integrated approach on public art practices, AMM‘s projected projects are analyzed including projects proposed to be realized and projects that couldn‘t be realized. These examples are selected from AMM‘s previous and new projects that are projected for Ankara related with public art and aesthetical concerns of the city. AMM‘s proposed projects for Ankara (including Lightening project of Ankara, project of water, music and lightening entertainment shows in Gençlik Parkı, project of creating a “historic” look for Kızılay by cladding the buildings with so-called Seljuk architecture) are projected with the aim of creating a city image and branding for Ankara through these projects. Like the lightening show and entertainment show in Gençlik Parkı AMM targets to realize a world-wide promotion of Ankara. Apart from the others two important aims of these projects are to succeed an increase of visitors and local spending in Ankara. Needless to say essential public needs, problems and priorities of the citizens are not concerned within proposed projects.

These proposed projects represent AMM‘s aesthetical perspective and general tendency of public art preferences like lightening, water shows and Seljuk architecture tendency. Though, these significant ―prestigious‖ projects of AMM do not respect the spatial, environmental and historical potentials of the public spaces and Ankara. Like the Gençlik Parkı project (which‘s preliminary rehearsal was realized) and cladding project in Kızılay would totally affect the identity and decrease symbolic values of these public spaces and public artworks they include by affecting its unity, legibility in its location and for that reason its characteristics.

The cases of AMM‘s unrealized projects were revealed as seven wonders for Ankara includes seven monumental constructions that were expressed as sculptures which were actually compromised shopping centers, museums, restaurants, etc. These wonders are exposed as ―the highest‖, ―the biggest‖ sculptures to make a promotion and branding for Ankara. These constructions were proposed within the policy of creating artworks/ constructions that resembles the highway‘s names with the aim of revealing historical and

141 cultural identities. Also they were proclaimed as ―sculptures‖, but in fact these projects use art, culture, history as a tool to realize the rent-based purposes of the Municipality. Also the aesthetical concerns, contributions to the location like their effects on silhouette were stayed at the background.

These monumental constructions were also proposed with the aim of promoting a city image and branding for Ankara. However these monumental figures represent the identity of the other cities that the roads oriented and do not contribute with the identity of Ankara. Actually they neglect the identity of Ankara by creating specific characteristic figures of the other cities.

Also the nationalist-conservative policy together with neo-liberal perspective of AMM can be observed within these projects (like constructing ―the highest Turkish flag‖, ―plane- hotel‖ which is aimed to be the symbol of Ankara, or sculptures of Seljuk and Ottoman figures in which people can eat and consume). The main policy is attracting local spending and tourist in Ankara but these projects would not be considered attractive potentials for the city.

4.1. The General Assessment on Contributions of Public Art Practices in Ankara through Discussion on the findings in relation to the theory

The in-depth literature survey on public art revealed that ―significant‖ public artworks have substantive contributions on public space that is examined in four topics including; spatial contribution, social contributions, political and ideological contributions and economical contributions of public art. After the brief account on evaluation of the multiple case study findings in Ankara, in this section a general discussion on the findings is aimed to realize in relation to the theory in particularly spatial contributions. Although multiple cases introduce various approaches on public artworks in urban spaces of Ankara, the study was not able to deeply examine the effect of each component revealed from this inquiry. This study however discusses and reveals the general consequences of AMM‘s interventions on public artworks and their locations.

Public art through long ages, is used to promote the ideas of hegemonic economic or political power groups either representing the agents of power groups or state, such as politicians, war heroes, monarchs, generals, etc., or imitating a specific past events or action, such as victory (Miles, 1997; Worth, 2003). In the first fifty years of the Turkish Republic, monumental sculptures in Ankara are used as means for building and supporting the regime and the new Turkish Republic. The effects of these monumental sculptures have been very important for the society in Ankara to meet figurative art, educate public,

142 promote appropriation of public artwork in public spaces and create a collective memory. These public artworks with a historical and commemorative character recall important historic events, activities and figures to establish a strong link between the public with its national history, and thereby they can create a national (collective) memory. Public art is used a means to create a national memory and preserve the social order by maintaining control not just through political and economic force, but also ideologically through hegemonic culture in which the values of power group became the common sense values of all (Miles, 1997).

Public artworks are also produced to challenge with the existing or previous hegemonic power through their interventions on existing public artworks and creating new artworks. The ideologies behind presenting public art are concealed in the matters of style and the bureaucracies of management (Miles, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1997). Since 1994 AMM has realized new projects for new public spaces by promoting its own ‗aesthetic‘ perspective and also realized significant interventions to existing public spaces and public artworks. Firstly, AMM realized new public artworks and design works in which their conservative perspective and pro-Islamic vision has predominated. Through their ruling period Islamic symbols, Seljuk and Ottoman styles/symbols harmonized with modern styles are used (Seljuk and Ottoman identities of the city have been promoted in urban projects), but not much modern public artworks that would contribute to public spaces of Ankara are produced. Secondly, AMM realized interventions to existing public artworks. These artworks have become significant elements of the public spaces by creating a strong link both with its location and the public through their visuality, physical appearance, meaning, historical or commemorative character. Besides these elements have an important effect on creating a collective memory of the public spaces. Since 1994 significant interventions realized to existing public artworks including first removal of public art because of the conservative perspective of AMM, second interventions on the characteristics of the existing public artwork (including its physical form, material, publicness and location) and finally interventions to the public spaces they exists. These interventions undermined the unique qualities, existing characteristic, identities and eventually blurred the symbolic meanings of public artworks in citizens‘ mind. Consequently, these interventions have led to blur and lose the collective memory of the city. Another aspect is that conservative perspective towards modern public artworks has risen within different city‘s local authorities and government as well, which led to raise a hegemonic conservative culture among society that is against modern public artworks realized in public spaces.

143

Public artworks are intelligent elements in public spaces that can participate public‘s everyday life through their free visual appereance, accessibility, legibility and the meanings they represent which would integrate the members of the society by generating public discussions or making them share the same values, meanings about the space (Roberts, 1998; Miles, 1997; Worth 2003; Hein 1996). Therefore, public art has a potential to create publicness in public space. However since 1994, the interventions/project of AMM on public artworks did not created publicness potentials moreover they disrupt the existing ones. For instance the publicness potential of most of the public artworks are disrupted by AMM through the interventions on existing public artworks or their locations by affecting their unity, legibility and accessibility (and also removing from their locations or building barriers). Moreover, new public artworks produced by AMM have not embodied ‗publicness‘ potential due to the public spaces they exists (public artworks‘ legibility, accessibility and relation with the location are not considered extensively in their projects), the meanings they represented and the development/realization process which did not include any public collaboration or participation.

Public art and the location it exists would have mutual contributions to each other. How public space is defined and used is an important criterion for artwork. Public art is framed by its location which is the open physical environment and dynamic social setting. As the features of location contribute to artwork‘s character, public art can also contribute to its location, space (by creating a sense of place) and identity of the place (Hall & Robertson, 2001; McCarthy, 2006; Kwon, 2002; Miles, 1997). Public artwork can create significance in its location and promote a sense of place by revealing (or creating) characteristic, repressed histories and identities of the place (Kwon, 2004; McCarthy, 2006).

AMM has intended some policies based on revealing Ankara‘s repressed histories including the interventions like installing symbols animals of Ankara or re-creating public spaces with Seljuk and Ottoman identities (which is as mentioned the selected ). Nevertheless these interventions are proposed without integrating the spatial characteristics or identities of these local areas rather re-orienting with new identities. For instance, the symbol animals are used endlessly in inappropriate locations that do not contribute to its identity in local place. Also AMM tried to use modern interpretations of Seljuk and Ottoman styles in different public spaces of Ankara however like in the example of Gençlik Parkı or the proposal to Kızılay demonstrate that these project do not contribute to the characteristics or identities of the public spaces they rather demolishes the original (republican) identity and the collective memory by replacing existing characteristics of the locations with the unadoptable new identities (that are rather eclectic).

144

Public art, has been performed through a physical public domain by which it becomes integral with the environment. Public art can assign meaning to urban environment through objects and actions including aesthetic component with physical and visual effect (significance through the relations of form, scale, colour, texture, use of materials, media or construction) (Brandao, 2003; Worth, 2003). It can compose and fit with the other elements in public space to create an organized composition (Worth, 2003). Besides, public arts decorate a space with place-making qualities and culture by creating meeting places and focal spots, and nodes of cities (Arts SA, 2009). However, public art interventions of AMM generally do not consider the significant contribution of public art in public spaces of Ankara including its interventions on existing public artworks and new public artworks. As a point of fact, AMM‘s interventions to the existing public artwork‘s locations undermined the existing characteristic and identities of these public spaces. Interventions are not compromised a general conservation and enhancement perspective for artworks. Therefore they decreased symbolic values by affecting and damaging historical and cultural contents of the space, also its unity, accessibility, legibility and also public artwork‘s artistic attributes which is also affected implicitly from the interventions to its location. Besides, new public artworks produced by AMM, designed by ignoring the unique spatial and environmental potentials of their location. AMM‘s public art practices basically targets to decorate and beautify the public spaces they exist but do not target to use public art as means to create, reveal or strengthen the locational characteristics and identities. Even some of the interventions create contradictory scenes with the location they exist. They are not specifically designed for these locations. Therefore, new public artworks are not an integrated part of their locations.

All the interventions of AMM have been produced as partitive projects which have re- created public space and urban identity through eclectic images. As such, these public spaces and public artworks have been produced (or, designed) without taking into consideration the spatial and environmental potentials of the location, public space, boulevard or the city. The interventions have undermined the existing characteristics and identities.

The general public has started to assimilate public art in public spaces of Ankara since the early republican period, however this situation has started to change recently as vandalisms and violations against public art are increased. Since verbal and physical violations are realized by local authorities in Ankara (also in different cities), vandalisms and violations against public art around city are increased since 1994. These would affect public art appreciation by society and the quality of life in city. As vandalisms and violations against public art around city are increased, local authorities have introduced strategies to protect

145 them. The conservation of the public artworks reduced to practices like building barriers or putting up security cameras around sculptures. However, local authorities can first realize strategies to protect and maintain the artworks as exist in public space. Second, they can generate strategies through public artworks‘ unique qualities together with public participation and inclusion processes which can reduce violation and increase public awareness. Through participation in development/realization processes, appropriation of public art by education and moral guidance, protection strategy can be constituted and maintained by local authorities (Hall & Robertson, 2011; Worth, 2003; ArtsSA, 2009).

Public artworks can act as potentials through their location, meanings they represent, which would enrich people‘s experience on art, design and environment perception (McCarthy, 2006; Hein, 1996). Also, public artworks can act as potentials through their collaborative and participatory development/realization process. As such, public art projects may generate public discussions, provide public involvement and engagement in the public art projects, thereby contributing to the public sphere, promoting community collaboration and empowerment, enhancing public education and encouraging social integration (McCarthy, 2006; Miles, 1997; Worth, 2003). Conversely, the public artwork projects in Ankara over 17 years have never been used to reveal such potentials. While creating and sitting an artwork for urban environment, municipality is not consulting Chamber of City Planners, Architects or Environmental Engineers. The interventions in Ankara have had no intention to provide the public involvement in the public art projects, to make constructive discussions and debates on the public spaces and public artwork projects, thereby increasing citizens‘ awareness about the city problems and contributing to public education. It has to be noted that some primitive public participation methods like public surveys realized in small scales like in the examples of Güvenpark and Gökkuşağı. However, these surveys are not realized to advance the local democracy or to enrich people‘s experience etc., they actually used as a means of legitimizing the municipal projects and interventions in front of the public. The public has never seen as the contributors of such public artwork projects. Public has been generally unaware of the project processes and their outcomes (effects on environment, public art or transformation process). The discussions on the public artwork schemes have occurred between AMM and the professionals and professional chambers. Thus, these projects have never provided above-mentioned outcomes. Nevertheless, the public has generally appreciated these projects because of their visual and aesthetic appeal, while these public artworks have not contributed to the identity of the city and their locations through their intended messages.

Public art can also contribute profit-motivated market objectives and revitalizing property market by creating distinctiveness, character and identity to its location and environment.

146

Public art itself can also contribute city-imaging and branding (Roberts, 1998; Kwon, 2002; McCarthy, 2006). Regarding the cases, AMM put rent-based objectives on foreground through the process of creation/ design of public spaces. However municipality has not approached to public art practices with profit motivated market objectives. Within rent- based public spaces, public artworks are used for decorations. The proposed and unrealized projects of AMM presented the projects that would contribute to city-imaging, branding and also the development of tourism for Ankara however; these projects are lack of other significant concerns and meaningful outcomes of public art practices.

As a result of the general assessment on public art practices in Ankara regarding the public art theory, it is obvious that AMM since 1994 is not practicing public art projects as its literature‘s guidance that shows the universal consent of the contributions of public art in public space.

4.2. Recommendations

“At a time when standardized approaches to design and development have been widespread, it is acknowledged that public art has a significant role when creating successful places and helping to establish successful and vibrant communities. The planning system is central to the control of development, and is increasingly concerned with the quality and longer-term sustainability of new development.” (Public Art Southwest, 2009)

Regarding Ankara Metropolitan Municipality‘s perspective on public art practices in public spaces of Ankara, this thesis aims to present significant recommendations based on how strategies and policies should be constituted for a general public art policy in Ankara for further practices.

Public art is a significant element for urban life, as it is tried to be explained throughout this study. Therefore in the first instance, ―public art‖ phenomenon should be adopted and internalized by local authorities with its characteristics and its multi-dimensional contributions in public space and urban aesthetics including its contributions to environment (spatial) and society (social), in addition to its contributions to political and economic development. A conservative perspective towards artworks in public spaces is rising among society in Ankara (and also across Turkey). Therefore local authorities should object to and also fight with the conservative perception that makes the public and government alienate from public artworks. Authorities should discontinue leading the development of this conservative culture.

Municipalities should support the provision of public art and create a base for public art‘ implementation within local authority context particularly in the light of adopted local

147 policy. Therefore, local authorities should construct public art policy142 and program by a commission that would be constituted of different professionals (including artists, urbanists, architects, etc.) in addition to officers143. The commission would offer guidance and support along with they would evaluate and supervise public artworks (and its basic principles including design criteria, aesthetic judgment, locational preferences, workshops, conservation criteria, competitions etc. for public artworks)144. The policies would create guidelines on how public art can be implemented within a local authority context, particularly in the light of adopted local policy. The public art policy should include basic strategies and guidelines on the topics of conservation, maintenance of existing public artworks and production of new artworks. These policies should establish centralized responsibility and clear guidelines with respect to acquisition of new public artworks and conservation of the existing public artworks. Public art policy may issue policy guidelines and basic strategies as mentioned below.

The basic objectives of local authorities should be providing artworks available to the public and disseminate public art throughout the city. Therefore, local authorities should support the provision of Public Art for public spaces of the city within a holistic manner (including promoting permanent and temporary examples of artworks, leading local and international festivals, events to exhibit their exhibitions in public spaces of their cities145). Public art should be promoted as part of the city considering its holistic contributions to public space. Local authorities should assign significant public artworks for design, production and installation at identified public space with the aim of adding identity, distinctiveness, interpretation and relevance.

At the strategic level it is important for authorities to set out their specific approach to public art, highlighting how they will integrate artwork within their public space projects. Public art can be evaluated as a part of the planning process by local authorities to rejuvenate and enliven new city districts for the benefit of residents and tourists alike. Local

142 Public art policies work best if they are viewed as a corporate policy; they may be integrated with a urban development policy, public realm strategy and should be always be a component of a cultural strategy (Public Art Southwest, 2009). 143 The unrestrained and insensible intervention of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality towards such existing symbolic public artworks has led to damage their unique qualities and characteristics of their components. Unfortunately no authority was able to stop or prevent these insensitive municipal actions. 144 After the removal and destruction of public artworks in different cities, art foundations and professional has proposed different suggestions for art production and conservation in public spaces. In 2011, Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (ĠKSV) proposed a report for formation of an autonomous Art in Public Space Committee within Istanbul Municipality but there exists no proposal for Ankara (Radikal, 2011). Ġstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (ĠKSV) proposed that there should be a Art in Public Space Committee composed of seven members including experts from Municipalities, universities and relevant professional organizations (Radikal, 2011). The committee is going to determine public art strategies, evaluate and supervise the projects developed by the Municipality and by other organizations (Radikal, 2011). 145 The International Street Festival in Ankara couldn‘t find support from municipalities therefore they realized ‗street‘ festival in different shopping malls like in 2011. These kinds of festivals are crucial for promoting artworks in public spaces. 148 authorities should be clear regarding aspirations and locations where high quality design is required and how public art is expected to contribute to the built environment. Public art can also influence the design of a development proposal. Besides, public arts decorate a space with place-making qualities and culture. It can create meeting places and focal spots, and nodes of cities (Arts SA, 2009). In this way, it can improve city legibility. Therefore, public art should be proposed or evaluated with respect to its effects on the layout of open spaces, public connections to adjacent features such as streets, parks and open spaces, and related requirements for setbacks and streetscaping. In order to start the process, local authorities should undertake an audit to establish what has already taken place and what is planned and, where possible, an evaluation of the impact of the projects in relation to the effectiveness or otherwise of the development.

Artwork as a powerful element in public space contacts with a wide range of people on their daily time intervals and it creates a communication context through its physical, aesthetical, social and spiritual meaning. Public art requires ―a responsibility for the relation between artistic creativity, and goals or interests that inform public space‖ (Brandao, 2003). Therefore, Local authorities should acquire and manage high quality, best practice and imaginative public artworks that enhance local identity, sense of place and enrich the cultural life of the community. Public artworks should be promoted as they contribute to the identity, understanding, appreciation, and enhancement of public places. They should be promoted as they have significant benefits on improving the visual quality of the public space, expressing and enhancing the City‘s (localities‘) history and cultural heritage, adding identity and long term value to a property, or as a way of effectively engaging with local people during a period of change.

Local authorities should promote successful collaborative working and encourage artists‘ involvement in the design and development of public spaces by facilitating collaboration between artists, planners, architects, landscape architects and urban designers. The collaboration should be realized in the conception, design development and implementation process of public artworks and also in conservation process of the existing public artworks.

In order to adopt public art by citizens, a series of education, advocacy and awareness- raising policies for public art including community collaboration and empowerment, enhancing public education and encouraging social integration should be promoted by local authorities that aim to stimulate the imagination, increase enjoyment and understanding of public art. As such, public art projects may generate public discussions; provide public involvement and engagement in the public art projects, thereby contributing to the public

149 sphere. Moreover these policies would also decrease vandalism and violations as they increase appropriation of public art by local users.

Principles and objectives for public art should be given local emphasis and made relevant to local circumstances and expectations. Local traditions and recent work should be highlighted in order to legitimize the way in which existing public art contributes to the distinctiveness and identity of local areas. Local authorities while promoting public artworks can pay specific attention of the issues like contribution to the unique identity and characteristics of the location, urban layout and architecture and also the city; including their social, historical, cultural background and significances. Public art can be used by local authorities as a means to foster the community‘s sense of spirit, pride146, and community values.

Local authorities should provide diversity of public artworks and provide sustainability of production of artworks. The existing public artworks should be developed together with new samples so that the qualified association of new and old would bring richness and diversity to urban identity (Bilsel, 2009).

The pursuance of existing public artworks‘ current situation is also a key issue. The examination, maintenance and conservation of exiting public artworks should be realized with the management of local authorities. Conservation of public art should be approached with the aim of reservation of public art as a cultural heritage for the future.

Public artwork should be conserved together with its features, components and characteristics of the artworks period. The conservation should comprise not only the public artwork itself but also its environment, public space or location together with its characteristics, physical layout and elements. The location should be considered as the significant areas where collective memory and cultural development is sustained. The interventions and project on public space should also consider the public artworks physical appearance, accessibility and legibility and also artistic and historical features which should be conserved with its characteristics.

Like most of the elements which make up public realm, public artworks won‘t last forever they deteriorate, become outdated, or need to be redeveloped. Therefore, local authorities should create strategies for deteriorated artwork‘s removal from public spaces. Unlike the arbitrary decisions of AMM, these decisions should be realized by professional commission which would consider artworks characteristics, contributions and existing condition.

146 The artworks made by local artists can serve as models for development of Turkish art which would also develop the community pride. 150

Besides the significant points mentioned above, public art projects should be realized by recognizing public art‘s contribution in local (cultural) tourism and economic development. Therefore, the required financial resources for public artworks should be created, supported or orientated by local authorities.

As a result of the critiques and discussions on public art policies, interventions, statements of AMM and their effects in public spaces of the city since the mid-1990s, the above mentioned points for public artwork policies are constituted a brief summary of proposals on what to consider for local authorities regarding theoretical frameworks and AMM‘s interventions. They seek to give hints about the possible necessary public art policies and strategies for Ankara‘s future which might require years of planning and consultation process.

(artscouncil, 2010) (Lorenzo, 2005) (Zimmerman, 1990)

151

REFERENCES

AA. (2008, April 4). Esenboğa yolu yeşillendirilecek. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from SABAHemlak: http://emlak.sabah.com.tr/guncel/esenboga_yolu_yesillendirilecek.html a-ape. (2008). a-ape. October 2009 tarihinde http://www.a-ape.org/ adresinden alındı

Acar, Ö. (2011, January 21). ‗Ucubeistan‘ Veziriazamı. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi.

Akansel, C. (2009, February). Revealing the Values of a Republican Park: Gençlik Parkı Deciphered in Memory and as Monument. Ankara, Turkey: Unpublished master's thesis, Middle East Technical University .

Akyol/Milliyet, T. (2005, March 23). 'Heykeli onarmam'. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from Milliyet: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2005/03/23/yasam/ayas.html

Altıparmakoğlu(soLküLtür), S. (2011, January 19). Heykele „ucube‟, yatırıma „eser‟ diyorlar. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from soLküLtür: http://kultur.sol.org.tr/haberler/heykele-ucube-yatirima-eser-diyorlar-542

Anadolu Haber Ajansı. (2006, October 9). Gökçek: "Esenboğa Protokol Yoluna Özal Adı Verilecek". Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Haberler.com: http://www.haberler.com/gokcek-esenboga-protokol-yoluna-ozal-adi-haberi/

Anfa Altınpark. (n.d.). Yaptığımız Peyzaj İşleri. Retrieved September 27, 2011, from Anfaaltınpark: http://www.anfaaltinpark.com.tr/tr/124/p/yaptigimiz-peyzaj-isleri

Ankara Büyüksehir Belediyesi. (2008, July 10). Esenboğa Yolu‟ndaki Binalara Estetik Kaplama. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Arkiteracom: http://v3.arkitera.com/news.php?action=displayNewsItem&ID=31485

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2007). Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from Gençlik Parkı Alanı‘na Ait Belediye Kabul Salonu, Kapalı Otopark, Kültür ve Gençlik Merkezi Projeleri Proje Tanımı: http://www.ankara- bel.gov.tr/AbbSayfalari/Projeler/rekreasyon_cevre_parklar/cevre/cevre/genclik.

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2008). Gar Altgeçidi Açıldı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara.bel.tr/Haberler/gav_kavsagi_11042008.aspx

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2009). Gençlik Parkı Baharla Birlikte Yaşama Dönüyor. Retrived July 10, 2011 from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara- bel.gov.tr/Haberler/genglik_parki_1122009.aspx

152

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2011, June 21). Başkent Süsleniyor. Retrived July 10, 2011 from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara.bel.tr/Haberler/baskent_susleniyor_21072011.aspx

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2011, September 5). Gençlik Parkı‟nda, Suların Işık ve Müzikle Dansı. Retrieved September 7, 2011, from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara-bel.gov.tr/Haberler/genclik_parki_05092011.aspx

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2011, April 1). Samanyolu Designer Outlet Açıldı. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara.bel.tr/Haberler/samanyolu1.aspx

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2011, March 4). Samanyolu, “Başkent Designer Outlet” Oluyor. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara.bel.tr/Haberler/samanyolu.aspx

Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi. (2011, May 17). Suların Dansına Büyük İlgi. Retrieved August 1, 2011, from Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi: http://www.ankara.bel.tr/Haberler/sularin_dansi_17052011.aspx

Ankara Haber. (2011, May 27). Ankara renk renk çiçeklerle bezeniyor. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Ankara Haber: http://www.ankarahaber.com/haber/Baskent-Ankara- renk-renk-ciceklerle-bezeniyor-/86033

Ankara Haber. (2011, January 2). Ankara'lılar yılbaşı gecesi havuzlara baktı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Ankara Haber: http://www.ankarahaber.com/haber/Ankara- lilar-yilbasi-gecesi-havuzlara-bakti/77564

Ankara Heykelleri. (2003, March 1). periler ülkesinde – altınpark – kaldırılan heykel. Retrieved December 10, 2011, from Ankara'nın heykelleri bir web projesi: http://ankaraheykelleri.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/periler-ulkesinde-altinpark- kaldirilan-heykel/

Ankara Heykelleri. (2007, February 28). sıhhiye çok katlı otoparkı – keçiler. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from Ankara'nın Heykelleri: Bir Web Projesi: http://ankaraheykelleri.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/sihhiye-cok-katli-otoparki- keciler/

Annabel Jackson Associates. (2007, June). Evaluation Of Public Art: A Literature Review And Proposed Methodology. Retrieved May 27, 2011, from Arts Council England: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/yorkshireimages/2007AJAEvaluation ofPublicArtLiteratureReviewPublicVersion.pdf

Anonymous. (2008). The Untold Story. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Ireland: http://www.ireland-family.net/english/america.www.htm

Arcak, E. (2010, May). Susuz Su Perileri. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from Aklına Estikçe: http://enverarcak.blogspot.com/2010/05/susuz-su-perileri.html

Arkitera. (2005, January 14). Ulusta Yıkım Tartışması. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Arkitera: http://v3.arkitera.com/v1/haberler/2005/01/14/ulus.htm

153

Arkitera. (2007, June 13). AKP yeni genel merkezini bugün açıyor. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from arkiteracom: http://v3.arkitera.com/news.php?action=displayNewsItem&ID=17491

Art Nouveau. (n.d.). Hector Guimard. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from Art Nouveau: http://artnouveau.pagesperso-orange.fr/en/artistes/guimard.htm

Arts & Culture Council, R. (2011). Public Art. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from Regional Arts & Culture Council: http://www.racc.org/

Arts SA. (2009, December 22). South Australian Government's Arts and Cultural Agency. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from Public art and design checklist: What is public art?: http://www.arts.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=291 artscouncil. (2010, November). Achieving great art for everyone. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from artscouncil: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/achieving_great_art_for_everyone.pd f

Asen, R. (1999). Toward a Normative Conception of Difference in Public Deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 115-129.

Atak, E. (2005). Bir BaĢkanın Araba Sevdası ve Ankara UlaĢımında Kayıp Yıllar. Planlama, 4, 102-112.

Ayoğlu, B. O. (2010, Febuary). ―Zafer Anıtı – Güvenpark – TBMM‖ Kent Aksının Varolan Durumunun Ġrdelenmesi ve Cumhuriyet Aksı Olarak Yeniden Tasarımı. Ankara, Türkiye: Unpublished master's thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi.

Balaban, O. (2006, July 26). Baskentin Derinlesen Ulasım Krizi. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Arkitera: http://v3.arkitera.com/h10465-baskentin-derinlesen-ulasim- krizi.html

Batuman, B. (2009). Mekan, Kimlik ve Sosyal ÇatıĢma: Cumhuriyet'in Kamusal Mekanı Olarak Kızılay Meydanı. In G. A. Sargın, Ankara'nın Kamusal Yüzleri Başkent Üzerine Mekan-Politik Tezler (pp. 41-76). Ġstanbul: ĠletiĢim Yayıncılık A.ġ.

Bayer, Y. (2011, January 09). Çağdaş bir başkent olsa Ankara‟dan taşınma olur mu? Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Hürriyet: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=16717487

Beech, D. (2005). Sloganeering. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Hewitt and Jordan: http://www.hewittandjordan.com/work/assets/sloganeering.pdf

Belediye Bülteni. (2011, March 29). Villalar Mağaza Oluyor. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from Belediye Bülteni Web Site: http://www.belediyebulteni.com/haber_detay.php?haber_no=18401

BeĢkurt, A. H. (2006). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Sanat Dergilerinde Türk Devrimi. Ġstanbul: Unpublished master's thesis, Ġstanbul Üniversitesi.

154

Bilsel, C. (2009, February). Ankara'da Kentsel BaĢkalaĢım karĢısında Kentsel Kimlik Sorunu: Kent Merkezleri ve Kamusal Mekanlar. Dosya 10.2 Yerel Yönetimler: Ankara, Kent Kimliği Mekansal-Kültürel Değişim, TMOBB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi, pp. 33-46.

Birharf. (2011, June 25). Ankara'nın Keçilerine Ne Oldu? Retrieved August 27, 2011, from Birharf: http://www.birharf.net/print.php?news.25

Birharf. (2011, June 26). Atatürk Zafer Anıtı (1927) Kızılay Maydanı Atatürk Bulvarı. Retrieved December 27, 2011, from birharf: http://www.birharf.net/print.php?news.46

Birharf. (2011, June 26). Miras Heykeli- Ankara Tren Garı Bahçesi. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from Birharf : http://www.birharf.net/news.php?item.41.18

Bozbeyoğlu, Ç. Ü. (2010, November). Kentsel Ranta El Koymada MeĢrulaĢtırıcı Bir Araç Olarak AlıĢveriĢ Merkezleri Ankara Nasrettin Hoca Kentsel Servis Alanı Örneği. Dosya 22 AMV'ler, TMOBB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi, pp. 85-89.

Brandao, P. (2003). APOCALYPTIC - INTEGRATED 20 notes of "parallel thought" on public space and economy, and some new types of public spaces. Public Art & Urban Design Interdiciplinary and Social Perspectives, on the w@terfront, vr.4, 163-168.

Büktel, Y. (2009, December 19). ANK » A1.06 EGO Otobüsleri - Tarihçe, Nostalji ve Hatıralar . Retrieved August 12, 2011, from wowturkey: http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30733&start=320

Büyükyıldız, F. (2009). Başka Kent Ankara. Ankara: Phoenix.

Cezayirlioğlu, H. (2010, October 1). ANKARA‟da çalınan heykeller. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from Haberakis: http://www.haberakis.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4881: heykeller

CHA. (2010, June 23). Nazarbayev'in Gençlik Parkı'ndaki Heykeli Yarın Açılacak. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Haberler.com: http://www.haberler.com/nazarbayev- in-genclik-parki-ndaki-heykeli-yarin-2118791-haberi/

Channel4. (2000, June). Andy Goldsworthy: Giant Snowball. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from Channel4: http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/bigart/gallery_2_gallery_4.html

CĠHAN. (2010, April 17). Başkan Gökçek: Ankara, kentsel dönüşüm projeleriyle dünya standartlarının üzerinde bir kent oldu. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Tüm Gazeteler: http://www.tumgazeteler.com/?a=6082673

CĠHAN. (2011, March 28). Erbakan ve Ecevit'in isimleri Ankara'da meydan ve bulvara verildi. Retrieved August 1, 2011, from Gazete Gerçek: http://www.gazetegercek.com/erbakan-ve-ecevitin-isimleri-ankarada-meydan-ve- bulvara-verildi.html

155

Cnn Türk. (2011, August 9). Gökkuşağı rekreasyon alanı açılıyor. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Arkitera: http://v3.arkitera.com/h10764-gokkusagi-rekreasyon-alani- aciliyor.html

Cow Parade. (n.d.). The World's Largest Public Art Event. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Cow Parade: http://www.cowparade.com/

Cumhuriyet. (1995, July 8). Gökçek Amblemine Çifte Engel. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi.

Cumhuriyet. (2011, June 12). Başkent sokakları sanatla renklenecek. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from Cumhuriyet Kültür Sanat: http://kitap.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?hn=253354

Cumhuriyet Ankara. (2006, December 22). 'Anakent Belediyesi'nin Heykelleri Bayağı ve Zevksiz'. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from yapı.com.tr: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/anakent-belediyesinin-heykelleri-bayagi-ve- zevksiz_50462.html

Cumhuriyet Ankara. (2006, August 25). Gökkuşağı Sorunlarla Açılıyor. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Yapı: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/gokkusagi-sorunlarla- aciliyor_47922.html

Cumhuriyet Ankara. (2009, October 25). Eski Halinden Eser Kalmadı! Retrived July 10, 2011 from Mimarlar Odası Genel Merkezi: http://www.mimarlarodasi.org.tr/index.cfm?sayfa=Belge&Sub=detail&RecID=195 1

Cumhuriyet Ankara. (2010, October 12). 6 Milyona „Fıskıye Dansı‟. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from yapı.com.tr: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/6-milyona-fiskiye- dansi_84361.html

Cumhuriyet Ankara. (2011, July 22). Üstgeçide „Semazen‟ Çıktı. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Yapıcom: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/ustgecide-semazen- cikti_88425.html

Çankaya Belediyesi. (2010, December 10). İnsan Hakları Anıtı Yerine Döndü. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Çankaya Belediyesi: http://www.cankaya.bel.tr/oku.php?yazi_id=8581

Çayyolu Haber. (2011, June 25). Esnaf Atakule'yi neden terketti? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Çayyolu Haber: http://www.cayyolu.com.tr/haber/Esnaf-Atakule-yi-neden- terketti/50465

DanıĢoğlu, B. (2011, May 26). AKP'nin 2009'daki Ankara Projeleri Daha Çılgındı. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from Bianet: http://bianet.org/bianet/bianet/130261-akpnin- 2009daki-ankara-projeleri-daha-cilgindi

Demiralp, S. (2001, August 20). Ankara-Akay Kavşağı (Atatürk Meydanı) Projesi Hakkında. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from arkitera forum: http://www.mimarlikforumu.com/showthread.php/332-Ankara-Akay-KavĢağı- (Atatürk-Meydanı)-Projesi-Hakkında

156

Dikmen Vadisi Halkı. (2009, May 15). Dikmen Vadisi 4. ve 5. Etap Kentsel Dönüşüm Projesi İptal Edildi !!! Retrieved August 1, 2011, from Dikmen Vadisi Halkı: http://dikmenvadisi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Item id=33

Doğan, A. E. (2005, April). Gökçek'in Ankara'yı Neo-Liberal RövanĢçılıkla Yeniden KuruĢu. PLANLAMA Sayı:34, pp. 125-130.

DuameX. (2011, July 18). Amazing and Attractive Cloud Gate Sculpture in Millennium Park, Chicago. Retrieved August 9, 2011, from DuameX: http://www.duamex.com/amazing-and-attractive-cloud-gate-sculpture-in- millennium-park-chicago/ ecowatch. (2012). Grassroots Advocacy at Its Best. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from ecowatch: http://ecowatch.org/2012/grassroots-advocacy-at-its-best/ ensonhaber. (2011, January 10). Mehmet Aksoy: O heykeli yıkamazsınız. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from ensonhaber: http://www.ensonhaber.com/mehmet-aksoy-o-heykeli- yikmazsiniz-2011-01-10.html

Erdoğan, A., Günel, G., & Kılcı, A. (2007). Ankara Tarihi ve Kültürü Yazı Dizisi:1 Tarih içinde Ankara. Ankara: Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi.

Erdoğan, A., Günel, G., & Narince, M. (2007). Cumhuriyet Ve Başkent Ankara, Ankara Tarihi ve Kültürü Dizisi: 4. Ankara: Ankara BüyükĢehir Belediyesi.

Ergir, Y. (2004). Düş Hekimi 4. Ġstanbul: Çınar Yayınları.

Ergir, Y. (n.d.). Doğum Yılı 1917. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from ergir: http://www.ergir.com/dy_1917.htm

Ertuna, C. (2005, April). Kızılay'ın ModernleĢme Sahnesinden TaĢralaĢmanın Sahnesine DönüĢüm Sürecinde Güvenpark ve Güvenlik Anıtı. PLANLAMA Sayı:34, pp. 6-15.

Erzen, J. (2009, February). Kent Estetiği ve Ankara için bir Manifesto. Dosya 10.2 Yerel Yönetimler: Ankara, Kent Kimliği Mekansal-Kültürel Değişim, TMOBB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi, pp. 3-11.

Estergon Kalesi. (2010, May 22). Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Metayorum: http://www.metayorum.net/gezilecek-yer-yorumlari/738-estergon-kalesi.html

FTA. (1996, February). Art In Transit...Making it Happen. Retrieved May 28, 2011, from United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration: http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/metro/planning_environment_3529.html

Gablik, S. (1998). The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art. New Renaissance magazine Vol. 8, No. 1.

Google Inc. (tarih yok). Akay Kavşağı - Google Maps. Retrived August 13, 2011 from Google Haritalar: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.913524,32.853622&ll=39.913559,32.85381&s

157

pn=0.00136,0.003696&sll=39.913287,32.855409&sspn=0.006295,0.011026&num =1&t=h&vpsrc=0&gl=tr&z=19

Gökçek, Ġ. M. (2010, October 14). BAŞKAN GÖKÇEK‟TEN ŞANGAY‟DAN AÇIKLAMALAR. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Ġ. Melih Gökçek: http://www.melihgokcek.com/baskan_gokcekten_sangaydan_aciklamalar-3.html

Gökçek, M. (2010, October 28). Güvenpark'ta Görsel Şov. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from Ġ. Melih Gökçek: http://www.melihgokcek.com/guvenparkta_gorsel_sov-11.html

Gökçek, M. (2011, Febuary 14). Hacı Bayram Camii Açılışı. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from Ġ. Melih Gökçek: http://www.melihgokcek.com/haci_bayram_camii_acilisi- 107.html

Günay, B. (2006). Ankara Çekirdek Alanının oluĢumu ve 1990 Nazım Planı Hakkında bir Değerlendirme. In T. ġenyapılı, Cumhuriyet'in Ankarası (pp. 60-119). Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık.

Gürel(HürriyetAnkara), D. (2010, June 12). Amblemsiz Başkent'e Ankara kedili logo. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from Hürriyet Ankara: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=15001253&tarih=2010-06-12

Haber 3. (2011, July 4). MEVLANA BULVARINA "SEMAZEN" HEYKELİ . Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Haber 3: http://www.haber3.com/mevlana-bulvarina-semazen- heykeli-ankara-buyuksehir-belediyesi-tarafindan-konya--932201h.htm

Haber2000. (2011, April 10). Ankara'nın Kuzeyi'ne 18 Bin Konut Yapılıyor. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from Haber2000: http://www.haber2000.com/haberdetay.asp?id=44431 haber365.com. (2011, June 12). AK Parti'nin Muhteşem Atakule Gösterisi (Video). Retrieved August 13, 2011, from haber365.com: http://www.haber365.com/Haber/AK_Partinin_Muhtesem_Atakule_Gosterisi_Vide o/

Habertürk. (2011, June 4). 'İnsanlık' gitti, yerine 'bal ve kaşar' anıtı yapılacak . Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Haber Türk: http://www.haberturk.com/kultur- sanat/haber/636814-insanlik-gitti-yerine-bal-ve-kasar-aniti-yapilacak

HaberTürk Ankara. (2011, May 31). Mimari Engel. HaberTürk, pp. 1,5.

HaberTürk Ankara. (2011, May 31). Mimari Engel/Habertürk Gazetesi Ankara Eki. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Ankara ġehir Plancıları Odası: http://ankara.spo.org.tr/index.php?view=article&catid=31%3Abasnda- ube&id=1097%3Amimari-engelhabertuerk-gazetesi-ankara- eki&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=113

Hall, T., & Chereen , S. (2005). Public art in the city: meanings, values, attitudes and roles. Interventions: Art and Urban Futures, Bristol: Intellect.

Hall, T., & Robertson, I. (2001). Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landscape Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, 5–26.

158

Hein, H. (1996). What is Public Art? Time, Place and Meaning. The Journal Of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 54, No. 1, 1-7.

Hızlan/Hürriyet, D. (2000, July 12). Doğan Hızlan: Başkanın keçi inadı. Retrived July 10, 2011 from Hürriyet: http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=-167531

Hür, A. (2009, October 18). Bir millet ki heykel yapmaz... Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Taraf: http://www.taraf.com.tr/ayse-hur/makale-bir-millet-ki-heykel-yapmaz.htm

Hürriyet. (2008, April 10). Gökçek: Vazgeçmedik. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Hürriyet ArĢiv: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=8662069

Hürriyet. (2008, May 23). Hitit Güneşi‟ne bariyerli koruma. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Hürriyet: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=8532837

Hürriyet. (2008, April 19). Hızlı tren garına karşı kavşak onayı iddiası. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from Mimdap: http://www.mimdap.org/?p=5563

Hürriyet. (2008, June 25). Keçiören açılışlarıyla gövde gösterisi yapacak. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Hürriyet: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=9511086

Hürriyet. (2009, March 26). 500 bin eşeğe bedel eşekli Hoca heykeli. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Hürriyet ArĢiv: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=11290394

Hürriyet. (2009, Ostober 1). Gökkuşağı'na da "Yokum" Diyor. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Yapı: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/gokkusagina-da-yokum-diyor_72862.html

Hürriyet. (2010, December 19). Meclis‟te önemli gece. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Hürriyet : http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=16571147

Hürriyet Ankara. (2004, July 17). Gökdelen Otele Uçak Konduracaklar. Hürriyet.

Hürriyet Ankara. (2007, January 22). Gökçek'in hayali fiyaskoya döndü. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Hürriyet ArĢiv: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=5815084&tarih=2007-01-22

Hürriyet Ankara. (2008, October 38). Gökkuşağı rekreasyon alanını kim akıl etti. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Hürriyet ArĢiv: http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=10223616&p=2

Hürriyet Ankara. (2009, February 25). Milyon liralık evler güvenlikçilere kaldı. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Hürriyet Ankara: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ankara/11076910.asp?gid=140

Hürriyet Ankara. (2011, January 21). Atıl yatırıma Twitter Sokağı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Hürriyet Ankara: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ankara/16829155.asp?gid=140

ĠHA. (2008, September 27). Ankara'da dev ekran tartışması. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from Haber7: http://www.haber7.com/haber/20081027/Ankarada-dev-ekran- tartismasi.php?gID=353626

159

ĠHA. (2010, December 14). Ankara'ya Şangay Aydınlatması. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from ĠHA Ġhlas Haber Ajansı: http://www.iha.com.tr/haber/detay.aspx?nid=146241&cid=11

Ġl Gazetesi. (2011, April 19). Ankara‟da „outlet‟lere ilgi artıyor. Retrieved August 13, 2001, from Ġl Gazetesi Web Site: http://www.ilgazetesi.com.tr/2011/04/19/ankara%E2%80%99da-outletlere-ilgi- artiyor/078490/

Ġlkay, Y. (2007, December). The Political Struggle on and at Public Space: The Case of Kızılay Square. Ankara, Turkey: Unpublished master's thesis, Middle East Technical University.

Ġnternet Haber. (2009, December 17). Ankara Selçuklu mimarisi ile donatılacak. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Ġnternet Haber: http://www.internethaber.com/ankara- selcuklu-mimarisi-ile-donatilacak-222090h.htm

ĠnternetHaber. (2011, June 15). Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan'ın ucubeye benzeterek kaldırılmasını istediği Kars'taki İnsanlık Anıtı'na son kepçe de vuruldu. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from Ġnternet Haber: http://www.internethaber.com/insanlik- aniti-artik-yok-353423h.htm

Ġstanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture. (2010). Istanbul at Haydarpaşa Train Station. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from Ġstanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture: http://www.en.istanbul2010.org/HABER/GP_812029

Kanal a Haber. (2011, September 16). İşte Ankara'nın yeni logosu. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from Kanal a Haber: http://www.kanalahaber.com/iste-ankaranin-yeni- logosu-haberi-83338.htm

Kaptan, A. K. (2009). The Monument of Victory that a nation have made out of nothing. Ankara The Best, 62-65.

Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. (2005). City Branding: An Effective Assertion Of Identity Or A Transitory Marketing Trick? the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, 506-514. kazete. (2011, October 14). Ankaralıya Gökçek cezası! Retrieved September 1, 2011, from kazete: http://www.kazete.com.tr/ankaraliya-gokcek-cezasi_19049.htm

Kenthaber Kültür Kurulu. (2009, April 4). Ankara Jülien Sütunu. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Kenthaber: http://www.kenthaber.com/ic- anadolu/ankara/merkez/Rehber/dikilitaslar/ankara-julien-sutunu

Koç, F., & Bilgöl, S. M. (2009). Gençlik Parkı Kapılarını 30 Ağustos'ta Açıyor. Büyükşehir Ankara, Year:5, no:243, , 3-13.

Komünist Berlin 3. (2011, October 19). Retrieved December 1, 2011, from cukurcumatimes: http://www.cukurcumatimes.com/2011/10/komunist-berlin- 3.html

160

Kuzey. (2011, June). Atakule Işıklandırıldı. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Kuzey Endüstriyel Dağcılık: http://www.kuzeydagcilik.com/v1.5/index.php?option=com_news&task=detail&id =14

Kwon, M. (2002, September). Public Art and Urban Identities. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from European institute for progressive cultural policies: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0102/kwon/en

Kwon, M. (2002, August). Public Art and Urban Identities. Retrieved February 2011, from eipcp: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0102/kwon/en

Kwon, M. (2004). One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publiching Ltd.

Lıcalı/CumhuriyetAnkara, M. (2008, December 26). Belediyesi Heykeli Sevmeyen Kent! Retrieved June 10, 2011, from Yapı.com.tr: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/belediyesi-heykeli-sevmeyen-kent_65393.html

Lorenzo, C. D. (2005). Urban undercurrents. URBAN DESIGN International, 10, 189–198.

Lovell, V. (2010, Kasım 2). Permanent versus temporary public art is not the issue. Retrieved 2011, from The Art Newspaper: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Permanent-versus-temporary-public-art- is-not-the-issue/21762

Lynch, K. (1992). Image of the City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Marchart, O. (1998, October). Art, Space and the Public Sphere(s). Retrieved June 3, 2011, from eipcp: http://www.eipcp.net/diskurs/d07/index.html

McCarthy, J. (2006). Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity? Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 11. No. 2, 243–262.

Melih Gökçek. (2009, April). Yapamadıklarım. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from i. Melih Gökçek: http://www.melihgokcek.com/yapamadiklarim.asp

Metropolitan Municipality Law, Number 5216. (2004).

Miles, M. (1997). Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. New York: Routledge.

Milliyet. (2007, May 16). AKP'de 'masonik simge' tartışması. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Milliyet: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/05/16/siyaset/siy14.html

Mimarlık. (2008, September-October). Mimarlık Dünyasından - Esenboğa Yolu Üzerindeki Yapılara "Son Derece Estetik" Kaplama . Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Mimarlık Dergisi: http://www.mo.org.tr/mimarlikdergisi/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=354 &RecID=1940

161

Mimdap. (2007, November 13). Suda sorun var mı? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Mimdaporg: http://www.mimdap.org/?p=2129

Mimdap. (2009, April 18). Ankara „Modern Taksi Durakları‟ Sergisi . Retrieved September 3, 2011, from Mimdap: http://www.mimdap.org/?p=18142

Mimdap. (2009, December 2). Geçmişten Günümüze Gençlik Parkı . Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Mimdap.org: http://www.mimdap.org/?p=28423

Mitchell, W. J. (1990). The Violence of Public Art: "Do the Right Thing". Critical Inquiry, pp. 880-899.

Banksy. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2011, from Banksy: http://www.banksy.co.uk/index.html

Publicart.ie. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2011, from Publicart.ie: http://www.publicart.ie/

Nettleship, W. (1989). Public Sculpture as a Collaboration with a Community. LEONARDO, Vol. 22, No.2, 171-174.

Newton, W. (2008, October 31). Barcelona in the Details Part II: Streetlights. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from Blog of the Courtier: http://blogofthecourtier.com/2008/10/31/barcelona-in-the-details-part-ii- streetlights/ ntvmsnbc. (n.d.). Başka 'ucube' heykeller de meydanlarda. Retrieved from ntvmsnbc: http://fotogaleri.ntvmsnbc.com/baska-ucube-heykeller-de- meydanlarda.html?position=7

Odatv. (2010, April 21). Melih Gökçek Bu Heykelle Ne Anlatmak İstedi. Retrived May 10, 2011 from Oda tv: http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=melih-gokcek-bu-heykelle-ne- anlatmak-istedi-2104101200

Oktay, D. (2009, February). Yerel Bağlam ve Kent Kimliği: Ankara Örneğinde bir TartıĢma. Dosya 10.1 Yerel Yönetimler: Ankara, Kent Kimliği Mekansal-Kültürel Değişim, TMOBB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi, s. 35-43.

Olsen, D. (1986). The City as a Work of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Özer, A. (2003). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti‘nin Baskenti Ankara Ġçin Düsünülen Amblem ve Tartısmalar. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2002-2003, 95-108.

Özsoy, A., & Bayram, B. (2007, July). The Role of Public Art for Improving the Quality of Public Places in the Residential Environment. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from ENHR Rotterdam Sustainable Urban Areas: http://www.enhr2007rotterdam.nl/documents/W08_paper_Ozsoy_Bayram.pdf

Öztürk, Ö. T. (2010). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Kültürel Değişim Hareketleri Ve Heykel Sanatına Yansıması, e-Dergi Sayı:2. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from Sanat ve Ġnsan: http://www.sanatveinsan.com/makale-oku.php?MakaleId=11

162

PektaĢ, E. K. (1999). Büyük Kent Belediyelerinin Eğitim ve Kültür Hizmetlerine Siyasal Parti İdeolojilerinin Yansimasi. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from ekitap: www.ekitapyayin.com/id/027/ucuncubolum4.htm#154

Peyzajist. (2009). İşte Gençlik Parkı‟nın yeni yüzü. Retrived July 10, 2011 from Peyzajist Peyzaj Mimarlığı Kentsel Tasarım Portalı: http://www.peyzajist.com/iste-genclik- parkinin-yeni-yuzu.html

Phillips, P. C. (1988). Out of Order: The Public Art Machine. In M. Miles, T. Hall, & I. Borden, The City Cultures Reader (pp. 96-102). London: Routledge.

Phillips, P. C. (1999). Dynamic Exchange, Public Art at this Time. Retrieved April 2011, from Forecast Public Art: http://forecastpublicart.org/anthology- downloads/phillips2.pdf

Planning Council, G. F. (2003). Public Arts Study. Greater Rochester: Public Arts Study for the Arts & Cultural Council of Greater Rochester.

Pointes, T. d. (2009, March 20). Wikipedia-Arne Quinze Sequence. Retrieved August 7, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arne_Quinze_Sequence7.JPG

Porch, R. (2000). Public art - an off the wall proposition? Urban Design, 76, 16-19.

PPS. (2011). Funding Sources for Public Art. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Projects for Public Spaces: http://www.pps.org/

Promim Proje. (2011, April 01). Promim Proje: Atatürk Meydanı. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from Promim Project -Urban - Landscape - Architecture Co. Ltd.: http://www.promimproje.com/projects/landscape/images/akay/akay.htm

Public Art Policy Development Group. (2009, January). City of London Public Art Program. Retrived June 1, 2011 from London Canada: http://www.london.ca/Committees_and_Task_Forces/PDFs/City_ArtsDoc_F_Apr_ 09.pdf a

Public Art Southwest. (2009, May). Public Art and Local Authorities. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from Public Art Online: http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/resources/practicaladvice/localauth/public_art_la s.php

Public Works. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2011, from Public Works: http://www.publicworksgroup.net/

Radikal. (2004, February 2). Melih Gökçek'in rüküş hayalleri. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from Radikal: http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalHaberDetayV3&ArticleID =701786&Date=04.06.2011&CategoryID=98

Radikal. (2009, October 14). Atatürk anıtını 'altın' rengine boyadılar. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from Radikal:

163

http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&Date=&ArticleI D=959159&CategoryID=77

Radikal. (2011, June 28). Melih Gökçek'ten Ankara'yı ısıklandırma planı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Radikal: http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&ArticleID=1054 372&Date=05.07.2011&CategoryID=77

Radikal. (2011, June 28). Melih Gökçek'ten Ankara'yı ışıklandırma planı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Radikal: http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&Date=&ArticleI D=1054372&CategoryID=77

Rendell, J. (2003). Public Art: Between Public and Private. Advances in Art, Urban Futures, 19-26.

Roberts, M. (1998). Art in Public Realm. In C. Greed, & M. Roberts, Introducing Urban Design: Interventions and Responses (pp. 116-225). London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Roberts, M. (2002). Foreword. Advances in Art, Urban Futures, University of Westminster, 5-7.

Sabah. (2003, July 19). Kapılar ArĢivde Unutuldu. Sabah Gazetesi.

Sabah. (2006, August 29). Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Bulvarı Granitle Süslendi. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from yapı.com.tr: http://www.yapi.com.tr/Haberler/recep-tayyip- erdogan-bulvari-granitle-suslendi_47993.html

Schechner, R. (1998). What is Performance Studies Anyway? In P. P. Lane, The Ends of Performance (pp. 357-362). (New York and London: New York University Press.

Scheepers, I. (2004). Graffiti and Urban Space. Unpublished master's thesis. Australia: University of Sydney.

Sennett, R. (1992). The Conscience of the Eye : The Design and Social Life of Cities. New York: W.W. Norton. soL. (2011, June 6). Atakule de AKP estetiğinden nasibini aldı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from soL Haber: http://haber.sol.org.tr/kent-gundemleri/atakule-de-akp- estetiginden-nasibini-aldi-haberi-43516 soL. (2011, April 26). 'İnsanlık Anıtı'nın yıkımı başladı. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from soL Haber: http://haber.sol.org.tr/print/kultur-sanat/insanlik-anitinin-yikimi-basladi- haberi-41886 soL(Ankara). (2008, October 22). Gökçek Gençlik Parkı‟nda alkolü yasakladı. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from soL: http://haber.sol.org.tr/kent-gundemleri/gokcek-genclik- parki-nda-alkolu-yasakladi-haberi-7018

Solfasol. (2011, July). Ankara Sokakları Grafittiye Kapalı Bunu da Gördük: AVM'de Sokak Festivali. Solfasol, p. 19.

164 soL-haber merkezi. (2011, July 16). Melih Gökçek çok mu uyanık! Retrieved August 11, 2011, from soL Haber Portalı: http://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/melih- gokcek-cok-mu-uyanik-haberi-44573 stgite. (n.d.). Cable Street. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from St George in the East Church: http://www.stgite.org.uk/cablestreet.html

ġenyapılı, T. (2006). Ankara Kenti 'Ġkili' Yapısında DönüĢümler. In T. ġenyapılı, Cumhuriyet'in Ankarası (pp. 217-244). Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık.

ġPO. (2008, January 10). Gökkuşağı Projesi Yargıda. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from ġehir Plancıları Odası: http://www.spo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=397&tipi=2&sube=1

T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2005, May 06). Açık Alan Heykel Etkinlikleri. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı: http://www.kultur.gov.tr/TR/belge/1-23947/acik-alan-heykel-etkinlikleri.html

T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2005, August 6). Anıt Heykeller. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı: http://www.kultur.gov.tr/TR/belge/1-23945/anit- heykeller.html

T24. (2011, January 1). 'Ucube' anıt yıkılacak mı? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from T24: http://www.t24.com.tr/haberdetay/121222.aspx

Tahaoğlu(bianet), Ç. (2011, April 29). İnsanlık Anıtı Yıkılırken. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from bianet: http://bianet.org/bianet/sanat/129659-insanlik-aniti-yikilirken

Tartanoğlu/Cumhuriyet, S. (2011, June 5). Ankara Selçuklu mu Cumhuriyet mi? Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Ankara Haber: http://www.ankarahaber.com/haber/Ankara- Selcuklu-mu-Cumhuriyet-mi/86545

TaĢdelen, Y. (2010, February 11). Gençlik Parkı - Eski Fotoğraflar. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from wowturkey: http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=107906&start=5

TaĢıma dünyası. (2011, July 28). Ankara‟da ramazan etkinlikleri . Retrieved December 05, 2011, from TaĢıma Dünyası: http://www.tasimadunyasi.com/2249- Ankaradaramazanetkinlikleri.html

The Lost Gardens of Heligan. (n.d.). Gallery. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from The Lost Gardens of Heligan: http://www.heligan.com/ thecoolist. (2010, July 12). Yekpare Istanbul Urban Screening Project. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from The Coolist: http://www.thecoolist.com/yekpare-istanbul-urban- screening-project/

TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası. (2005, May 4). GÜVENPARK BASIN AÇIKLAMASI. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası: http://www.peyzajmimoda.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=21&tipi=3&sube=0

165

TMMOB ġehir Plancıları Odası. (2003, june 07). GÜVENPARK'I KURTARALIM. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from TMMOB ġehir Plancıları Odası: http://www.spo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=56&tipi=2&sube=0

TMOBB ġehir Plancıları Odası. (2011, June 31). Mimari Engel. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from TMOBB ġehir Plancıları Odası: http://www.spo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=2917&tipi=2&sube=1

TOKĠ Haber. (2011, July 14). Yeni konutlarda yöresel izler. Retrieved August 1, 2011, from TOKĠ Haber: http://www.tokihaber.com.tr/haber/Yeni%20konutlarda%20y%C3%B6resel%20izl er

Toplumsal Tarih. (2009, July 15). Dosya: Lörcher‟in Ankara‟sı; Anti-Modernist Ve Otoriter Eğilimleri Yansıtan Bir Şehir Tahayyülü. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from Mimdap: http://www.mimdap.org/?p=22066

Tunçer, M. (2010, February 22). Cumhuriyet‟in “Mimari Mirası”nın Planlama Aracılığı İle Korunması: Ankara Örneği . Retrived July 21, 2011 from planlamaorg: http://www.planlama.org/new/makaleler/cumhuriyet-in-mimari-mirasi-nin- planlama-araciligi-ile-korunmasi-ankara-ornegi.html

Tunçer, M. (2011, March 18). Demiryolu ve Başkent Ankara. Retrived July 10, 2011 from ankaratarihi.blogspot: http://ankaratarihi.blogspot.com/2011/03/demiryolu-ve- baskent-ankara.html

UlaĢım Online. (2011, September 22). Ankara'nın yeni meydanı 1 senede bitecek! Retrieved September 28, 2011, from UlaĢım Online: http://www.ulasimonline.com/news_detail.php?id=31101&uniq_id=1324229604

Usherwood, P. (2003). Public art and pseudo-history. on the w@terfront: Public Art & Urban Design: Interdisciplinary and Social Perspectives, 60-73.

Vale, L., & Warner, S. B. (1998). Imaging the City . The Place of Media in City Design and Development.

Vikipedi. (2008, December 28). Su Perileri Ankara. Retrieved June 04, 2011, from Vikipedi: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Su_perileri_ankara.jpg

Vikipedi. (2011, June 12). Kızılay'daki Atatürk Meydanı. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from Vikipedi: Özgür Ansiklopedi: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Atat%C3%BCrk_Meydan%C4%B1.jpg

WebUrbanist. (2009, July 29). 12 Creative Architectural Art Installations & Building Modifications. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from weburbanist: http://weburbanist.com/2009/07/28/12-creative-architectural-art-installations- building-modifications/

Wiki Answers. (n.d.). What is a vigilante? Retrieved April 4, 2011, from Wiki Answers: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_vigilante#ixzz1PZ6uP2be

166

Wikipedia - Manneken Pis. (2011, June 19). Manneken Pis. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis

Wikipedia. (2011). Statue of Liberty. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

Worth, M. (2003). Creating Significance through public space. An Inclusive + Interdisciplinary practice. on the w@terfront: Public Art & Urban Design: Interdisciplinary and Social Perspectives, pp. 47-60. wowTurkey. (2006, January 27). Ankara Gök Kuşağı Yolu. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from wowTurkey: http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=191941#191941 wowturkey. (2007, April 14). Ankara - Eski fotoğraflar. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from wowturkey: http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr144/korgun_k.jpg wowTurkey. (2011, June 27). Ankara Göksu Parkı. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from wowTurkey: http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5267&start=200 wowturkey. (n.d.). Ankara Eski Fotoğraflar. Retrieved August 19, 2011, from wowturkey: http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr363/osmantoklu_Zafer_MEy.jpg wowturkey. (n.d.). Ankara Sıhhıye. Retrieved Novemnber 20, 2011, from wowturkey: http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr291/osmantoklu__KBH5184.jpg

Yalım, Ġ. (2009). Ulus Devletin Kamusal Alanda MeĢruiyet Aracı: Kamusal Belleğin Ulus Meydanı Üzerinden Kurgulanma Çabası. In G. A. Sargın, Ankara'nın Kamusal Yüzleri Başkent Üzerine Mekan-Politik Tezler (pp. 157-215). Ġstanbul: ĠletiĢim Yayıncılık A.ġ.

Yazıcıoğlu, Y. (2005, March 24). 'Heykelimi çıkarın'. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from Milliyet: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2005/03/24/guncel/gun04.html

Yıldırım, ġ. (2011, May 27). Ankara ranttan 'çıldıracak'! Retrieved July 3, 2011, from BirGün: http://www.birgun.net/actuels_index.php?news_code=1306484419&year=2011&m onth=05&day=27

Yurt Medya. (2011, April 26). Heykelin Nasipsizi. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from Yurt Medya: http://yurtmedya.com/news_detail.php?id=4357

Zimmerman, E. (1990). Public Art and The Environment. forcast public art, issue 03.

167